deprave
New Member
For those who think section 1032 doesn't apply to US citizens watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLiKvSz_wX8
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:
To make it even more clear we can look at the proposed amendment that was shot down to actually make 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.”
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