Indefinite Military Detention Of US Citizens Win For Terrori

well since I am not as smart as you GOP and read both section 1031 and 1032, I do not see what you posted. So let me do it this way, imo, first the President has to be involved and indefinite would be till the end of hostilities/war/conflict, and the President must confer with Congress on these actions and section 1032 does state about US citizens and legal resident aliens being exempt.

Subtitle D—Detainee Matters

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.

(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
( 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.

navycpo7 wrote: well since I am not as smart as you GOP and read both section 1031 and 1032, I do not see what you posted. So let me do it this way, imo, first the President has to be involved and indefinite would be till the end of hostilities/war/conflict, and the President must confer with Congress on these actions and section 1032 does state about US citizens and legal resident aliens being exempt.

Since this bill is 908 pages long, I suspect you haven't read it all, and the sections or text you are quoting are not the whole bill. As of any bill (and heavens I've read enough of them) the devil is in the multiple pages. Never assume that what you read in one section is set in stone. These are legal documents cleverly designed to be obtuse, unfortunately that's the modus operandi for who our government frames the language of these documents.

To get on to the details... starting on page 418 of this 908 page document we see...

418
† HR 1540 PP
1 Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
2 SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
3 FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN
4 COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU5
THORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority
7 of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force
8 pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force
9 (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed
10 Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as
11 defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law
12 of war.
13 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this
14 section is ANY person as follows:
15 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com
16 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
17 September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for
18 those attacks.
19 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
20 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
21 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
22 States or its coalition partners, including any person
23 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
24 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112h ... 1540pp.pdf

(bold and caps are my mark ups)

There are provisions to allow ANY person to be detained if they meet these certain conditions. It's in the bill, smart has nothing to do with it.

Yes, I saw it the first time... I also think that the part with the problem is Section 1031... But I'm not an attorney, and I think that if this were a non-issue, then the J.A.G., the Justice Department, and others wouldn't be having this fight about it.

I wasn't trying to imply that I'm smarter than you, or that you are wrong... But I also don't believe that the part that you are quoting is the part with the problematic language.

LadyJazzer wrote: Yes, I saw it the first time... I also think that the part with the problem is Section 1031... But I'm not an attorney, and I think that if this were a non-issue, then the J.A.G., the Justice Department, and others wouldn't be having this fight about it.

I wasn't trying to imply that I'm smarter than you, or that you are wrong... But I also don't believe that the part that you are quoting is the part with the problematic language.

LJ the smart part or lack thereof comes from me.

Didn't mean to offend... I just think that there is obviously a section of this bill that implies this "indefinite detention of US citizens", or there wouldn't be such a fight going on, and I don't have the time to read a document that big and pull out the offending part.

Hopefully, someone will point to the offending section and we can zero in on it...

I thought that I heard that this was re-written to exclude US citizens. I could be wrong as it was one of those really early mornings after a night of emergencies, but I pretty sure that's what I heard.

LadyJazzer wrote: Didn't mean to offend... I just think that there is obviously a section of this bill that implies this "indefinite detention of US citizens", or there wouldn't be such a fight going on, and I don't have the time to read a document that big and pull out the offending part.

Hopefully, someone will point to the offending section and we can zero in on it...

You didn't, I was just explaining to GOP that I was not as smart as him, and some others on here. But reading the section over and over maybe I am just missing something.

Precedent? I wonder if US citizens were given all their rights if they had been suspected of sabotage or spying during the American Civil War and other declared wars.

FredHayek wrote: Precedent? I wonder if US citizens were given all their rights if they had been suspected of sabotage or spying during the American Civil War and other declared wars.

As I suspected, there is still language in the bill the allows indefinite military detention, and the ability to lock up citizens:

Indefinite Military Detention: Revised Defense Bill Still Gives President Authority To Lock Up Citizens

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/1 ... 46181.html

Gee, I wonder if anybody gives a sh*t if all the rights had been given in the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, the Spanish-American War, the Bosnian War, the "War" on Grenada, ad nauseum... since what we're talking about is indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens since 2001? You need to get over that....

Oh, and you can throw away your collection of buggy-whips... I don't think you'll be needing them.

LadyJazzer wrote: As I suspected, there is still language in the bill the allows indefinite military detention, and the ability to lock up citizens:

Indefinite Military Detention: Revised Defense Bill Still Gives President Authority To Lock Up Citizens

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/1 ... 46181.html

Gee, I wonder if anybody gives a sh*t if all the rights had been given in the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, the Spanish-American War, the Bosnian War, the "War" on Grenada, ad nauseum... since what we're talking about is indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens since 2001? You need to get over that....

Oh, and you can throw away your collection of buggy-whips... I don't think you'll be needing them.

You're right. From the compromise bill section 1021:

http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/P ... 40conf.pdf

(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the author-
25 ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
1 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
2 Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes
3 the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States
4 to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b))
5 pending disposition under the law of war.
6 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
7 this section is any person as follows:
8 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com-
9 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
10 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon-
11 sible for those attacks.
12 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
13 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
14 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
15 States or its coalition partners, including any person
16 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
17 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
18 forces.