National Defense Authorization Act sections 1031 and 1032

deprave

deprave

New Member
White Grape said:
For those who think section 1032 doesn't apply to US citizens watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLiKvSz_wX8
Click to expand...

Hmm so intresting enough, Is Mr levin right about this? I just checked the bill today NDAA 2012


Union Calendar No. 39
112TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 1540
[Report No. 112–78]

I found it mind boggling that so many senators and lawyers would say such a thing even though it wasn't true, heh, well to be fair more so that they would make something up completely out of thin air! This bill barely passed! so I looked into this further.


from house.gov and the parts that made citizens immune does actually seem to be removed? or was it just moved? Regardless back to the original bill assuming I am just overlooking, this is the argument the ACLU and others are making on the version that had the clause making citizens Immune:

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(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.

—-Therein lies the argument. It clearly says, the “REQUIREMENT,” not the “authority. That requirement refers to the requirement made under section 1032 (a), paragraph 1 that REQUIRES
“the Armed Forces of the United States [to] 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.”

—-subsection b is clarifying that the REQUIREMENT is waived; however the authority is still there. As Caucus. Spencer writes: Section 1032 “would just ‘let’ the government detain a citizen in military custody, not ‘force’ it to do that.”
Click to expand...
To make it even more clear we can look at the proposed amendment that was shot down to actually make citizens immune:

Google “Mark Udall amendment 1107″, that’s the other amendment, the one that the ACLU is pushing… you will find this page…
http://www.google.com/search?q=Mark+Udall+amendment+1107&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
 
W

White Grape

Member
deprave, you're right. There is much more to this bill then those two sections.
Declaring the US a war zone is flat out scarey.
Not because of any terrorist threat, but the government threat.
When the OWS protests started I was reminded of the early 70's and they war protests.
I seen the govt. try to suppress our 1st Amendment rights then and now.
When I saw the police in military gear and spraying protesters, I was reminded of May 4, 1970,
or the Kent State Massacre.
But even though the govt. then tried to step on our rights, they didn't try to abolish them like they are trying today.
This bill if passed as written could wipe out the Constitution, just by declaring US soil a war zone.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
Straight out, it's The Enabling Act.... made a couple threads on other boards describing it as much. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure most people don't know what that is. But this bill renders the rule of law obsolete and gives the executive all the power they could ever want.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
Straight out, it's The Enabling Act.... made a couple threads on other boards describing it as much. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure most people don't know what that is. But this bill renders the rule of law obsolete and gives the executive all the power they could ever want.
Click to expand...

He he yep, I doubt many people know what the enabling act was.

Basically the enabling act gave Hitler and his cabinet dictatorial powers, that is when the shit really started flying.

"Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Nation" Was the actual name of the enabling act. http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/enabling.htm



These enabling acts were unconstitutional, as the Weimar constitution did not provide the possibility that one organ (parliament) would transfer its rights to another one (government). But constitutional experts accepted them because they came into existence with a two-thirds majority, the same majority as for constitutional changes.
Click to expand...
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:6:./temp/~c1128S02xx:e578148

(e) 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.

(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.

You guys are hilarious...and paranoid.
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
Straight out, it's The Enabling Act.... made a couple threads on other boards describing it as much. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure most people don't know what that is. But this bill renders the rule of law obsolete and gives the executive all the power they could ever want.
Click to expand...
I'm glad that we have people that don't even understand the bill making threads elsewhere...awesome. There is no "enabling" as is explicitly stated in the body of text of the bill itself.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
I havent been paying much attention to this and everybody is saying that it does not cover American citizens.

Ok, then what is it for? What exactly does it give the military permission to do that it cant do now?
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
I havent been paying much attention to this and everybody is saying that it does not cover American citizens.

Ok, then what is it for? What exactly does it give the military permission to do that it cant do now?
Click to expand...
Essentially, this closes the loophole for people (like the terrorist al-alwaki) who may be "citizens," but are not living in the US, that are captured for their conduct OUTSIDE the US (ie planning and executing attacks against the US) from being having their "constitutional rights" protecting them from being treated as a combatant. However, if you are captured within the US, you are still granted your constitutional rights.

It's really friggin' simple, unless you are incompentent, or just freakishly paranoid.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:
Essentially, this closes the loophole for people (like the terrorist al-alwaki) who may be "citizens," but are not living in the US, that are captured for their conduct OUTSIDE the US (ie planning and executing attacks against the US) from being having their "constitutional rights" protecting them from being treated as a combatant. However, if you are captured within the US, you are still granted your constitutional rights.

It's really friggin' simple, unless you are incompentent, or just freakishly paranoid.
Click to expand...
That seems almost completely opposite of what Obama's pledge was before he took office. He promised to close GITMO... Ooops.... Why would he want more people to be able to be detained by the military since he so fervently opposed it?
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
That seems almost completely opposite of what Obama's pledge was before he took office. He promised to close GITMO... Ooops.... Why would he want more people to be able to be detained by the military since he so fervently opposed it?
Click to expand...
Well, the executive order he signed was to start an initial inquiry investigating the "POSSIBILITY" of closing gitmo...it was going no where...

Because now he is president, and he is doing the right thing, which is taking steps to prevent an attack on his watch.

Campaign rhetoric, come on man...how many times have promises been made? Reality is a far different beast.
 
budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
The Ruiner said:
Well, the executive order he signed was to start an initial inquiry investigating the "POSSIBILITY" of closing gitmo...it was going no where...

Because now he is president, and he is doing the right thing, which is taking steps to prevent an attack on his watch.

Campaign rhetoric, come on man...how many times have promises been made? Reality is a far different beast.
Click to expand...

"Those that would sacrifice Liberty for security will have neither."
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:
Well, the executive order he signed was to start an initial inquiry investigating the "POSSIBILITY" of closing gitmo...it was going no where...

Because now he is president, and he is doing the right thing, which is taking steps to prevent an attack on his watch.

Campaign rhetoric, come on man...how many times have promises been made? Reality is a far different beast.
Click to expand...
You mean like Aminutjob over in Iran? Once they develop a nuclear weapon he will be all like "April Fool's!!" we were just kidding about that whole Iran thing.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:
I'm glad that we have people that don't even understand the bill making threads elsewhere...awesome. There is no "enabling" as is explicitly stated in the body of text of the bill itself.
Click to expand...
Legal scholars disagree and your ability to read is pretty poor.

The only thing that section states is that the military can choose whether they hold someone indefinitely or not if they are a US citizen (which, if you understood the bill, you would understand the military is required (it`s in the bill earlier and it`s in the sections you site) to hold someone indefinitely if deemed a terrorist by the executive (meaning if you are an American you might see the light of day again, maybe, if the military decides you are not really a threat (unilaterally without oversight). It means nothing.
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
Legal scholars disagree and your ability to read is pretty poor.

The only thing that section states is that the military can choose whether they hold someone indefinitely or not if they are a US citizen (which, if you understood the bill, you would understand the military is required (it`s in the bill earlier and it`s in the sections you site) to hold someone indefinitely if deemed a terrorist by the executive (meaning if you are an American you might see the light of day again, maybe, if the military decides you are not really a threat (unilaterally without oversight). It means nothing.
Click to expand...
You're missing a parenthesis..... If you were a programmer your code would be all jumble fucked..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top