Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Senators demand the military lock up citizens in a "battlefield"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Scuba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 08:33 AM
Original message
Senators demand the military lock up citizens in a "battlefield"
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-dem... /


Senators demand the military lock up citizens in a "battlefield" they define as being right outside your window



..snip..

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this presidentand every future president the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last nights Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

I know it sounds incredible. New powers to use the military worldwide, even within the United States? Hasnt anyone told the Senate that Osama bin Laden is dead, that the president is pulling all of the combat troops out of Iraq and trying to figure out how to get combat troops out of Afghanistan too? And American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?

The answer on why now is nothing more than election season politics. The White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act are harmful and counterproductive. The White House has even threatened a veto. But Senate politics has propelled this bad legislation to the Senate floor.

..end..



Sounds like another lame attempt to smear the Democrats as being soft on defense, but this also sounds damn dangerous.


Here's a link to the ACLU site where you can petition your Senators to kill this bill...

https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=...


Hopefully, our clued-in DU members will be able to further our knowledge of this bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
1. Shrub slipped it in , their just refining it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeHoops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. "they're" - grammar police.
:evilgrin:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Thanks ,evoking "Shrub" makes me illiterate sometimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Remember Me Donating Member (730 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. ROTFL
It's contagiouis, then??

Too funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #3
25. And that nasty little comma splice immediately preceding it - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
2. You know what this is for..
And why it's moving so fast and so secretly.

The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #2
23. Julian Assange.. et al
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
33. I would think that it would be one bill that both mainstream Dems and repugs
outside of the beltway could agree upon as a VERY BAD idea!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
4. "imprison without charge or trial civilians"
This is unconstitutional.
No ifs ands or buts.

Of course, assassinating US citizens is also unconstitutional,
but we have no problem with sweeping that under the rug: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
22. guantanamo all of us fuck levin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CanonRay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
5. Because they know economic collapse is coming
and coming soon to a Supermarket near you, and it won't be pretty. Flame away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
38. I agree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-11 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #38
47. Me too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
41. and the bankruptcy of our nation was all planned
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-11 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #41
48. That also. Scooping up as much money as possible and consolidating power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohheckyeah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-11 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #5
53. Probably.
I certainly can't think of an argument against your statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Gidney N Cloyd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Yeah, that struck me as out of character for Levin, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #6
26. The waterboarding and beatings will continue until
Edited on Fri Nov-25-11 10:27 AM by coalition_unwilling
morale improves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
10. At first I thought this was a joke, but this is real. This warning is coming directly from the ACLU
Let's call our reps and tell them we demand the Udall amendment instead.

And let's keep this thread kicked.

K&R

:kick:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. We need to be demanding the end of these powers and declaring those who support it traitors
and oath breakers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scuba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. That sounds about right to me. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
11. Recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marrah_G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
12. wtf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
14. Will these REPUBLICANS stop at anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Carl Levin is a Democrat and it's his and John McCains legislation
We need to know who our real enemies are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. When it comes down to a vote we'll see how the republicans vote. . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scuba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #16
24. Levin does not appear to hold true to traditional Democratic values, at least in this case. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
15. I wonder if Congress is feeling the un-love from the citizens?
When things are done in secret 'in our name' there's always more than meets the eye. These types of legislations aren't born in a vacuum or pulled out of thin air.

The first thought I had is that they're feeling our wrath boiling over and they're protecting themselves. They're real masters are getting displeased.

I hate to say I'm making this up. This really is my first thoughts on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
39. Of course they're protecting themselves from the peasants.
What else was Homeland Security created for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capitalocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
17. Well, glad to see Obama is fighting it, let's hope he sticks with this one
We're running out of constitutional amendments for them to trample on. Well, I draw the line at quartering of soldiers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
18. No sense pretending they want to keep habeas corpus and the
Posse Comitatus Act anymore since the Bill of Rights has been done away with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-11 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #18
58. Regarding The Posse Comitatus Act

The Posse Comitatus Act is an often misunderstood and misquoted United States federal law (18 U.S.C. 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies from using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any orders to do so must originate with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.

The statute only directly addresses the US Army (and is understood to equally apply to the US Air Force as a derivative of the US Army); it does not reference, and thus does not implicitly apply to nor restrict units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States. The Navy and Marine Corps are prohibited by a Department of Defense directive, not by the Act itself.<1><2> The Coast Guard, under the Department of Homeland Security, is exempt from the Act.

SNIP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
19. So much for Posse Commitatus...
I'm not so sure we need to worry about the military as much as we do the "civilian" police.
Soldiers might balk at shooting unarmed people who look and talk like them (Kent State notwithstanding). Roid Ranger psychopathic cops? Not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-11 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #19
59. See comment #58 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
27. ''...the bill is needed because 'America is part of the battlefield.'''


From ACLU's The Blog of Rights

EXCERPT...

In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial American citizen or not. Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because America is part of the battlefield.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scuba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Thanks for the amplification. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. Halliburton got the contract.
Feds Schedule $385 Million Concentration Camp To Be Built By Halliburton Subsidiary

FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- KBR, the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton Co. /quotes/zigman/228631/quotes/nls/hal HAL -.00% , said Tuesday it has been awarded a contingency contract from the Department of Homeland Security to supports its Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in the event of an emergency. The maximum total value of the contract is $385 million and consists of a 1-year base period with four 1-year options. KBR held the previous ICE contract from 2000 through 2005. The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to expand existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs, KBR said. The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster, the company said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scuba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Your link failed. Any ideas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Sorry. Try this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scuba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. Thank you!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-11 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #32
50. They just had a big AD in the Minneapolis paper "hiring".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-11 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #27
49. What? There aren't enough wars elsewhere?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suffragette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-11 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #27
56. "the homeland is part of the battlefield"
That just makes me ill.

So sick of the authoritarian fear-mongering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
29. Grrr... K & R !!!
:mad:

:banghead:

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
30. This seems to be part of the disengagement process...

where the US Government attempts to disengage from the American public and, instead, works for the global corporate interests. The American people are just getting in the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YellowRubberDuckie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
31. Let them do it.
There is a seedy underbelly in this country just WAITING for this to happen. Hello civil war II!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
35. I am sure this is all OWS's fault. Damn hippies
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
37. Is it time for V yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. It's midnight for the Anglo-American Empire.
Big Ben is exploding along with his uncle, a guy called Sam.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SomethingFishy Donating Member (552 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
42. First I have heard of this... it's one of the many reasons
I post here. You see things that are supposed to be hidden. I will have to mass e-mail this one. You know, I'm not big on bringing up Nazi shit, it's overused, but this is some Nazi shit right fucking here man... Some serious Nazi shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Me too. I don't understand why this story doesn't have more visiblilty
with the alternative press. (Main stream media we of course can forget about them. They are totally asleep at the switch.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. Both Shrub and Obama already claimed this power.
This just further codifies it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-11 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #44
51. KICK it then!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ancianita Donating Member (28 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
45. This is some sinister shit. Everyone -- Occupy DC and MSNBC -- needs to yell about this provision.
It doesn't matter whether Udall of Colorado comes riding to the rescue with an amendment.

Who is going to brush off cassandra warnings about these leaders who, when they think that any American is a potential enemy, present themselves as Americans' enemies in the name of military 'flexibility.'

It's not the peace train that's approaching the Occupy Movement and all Americans. It would be stupid to wait until it hits us as law before anyone challenges these leaders for how they view the world. It doesn't matter if only the president decides, or if the bill might be seen in terms of special ops. Those stipulations in no way override the military/civilian breakdown of authority, the totalitarianism of this move or its application to the Occupy Movement.

When sponsors of such bills won't hold public hearings or allow public discourse, this is some sinister shit. The writers of this provision who see Americans as potentially dangerous are themselves dangerous and must be removed from office. I don't care if one of them was once a POW. I hope Occupy DC does at least a mic check in the Senate over this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-11 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
52. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohheckyeah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-11 01:44 AM
Response to Original message
54. One would almost think
the conspiracy is no longer a theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Downwinder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-11 01:45 AM
Response to Original message
55. It would appear that someone takes the 2012 predictions seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-11 02:13 AM
Response to Original message
57. Anyone have a copy of sections 1031 and 1032 of the Defense Authorization bill?

I think we should all take a deep breath and wait to see exactly what those 'two sections' say.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-11 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #57
61. Here's the text of Section 1031 and 1032 (referred to by the ACLU)
Edited on Sat Nov-26-11 03:16 AM by Tx4obama

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

(B) 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.

(B) 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.

-------

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c1... :


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #61
65. Your link doesn't work.... Something about timing out...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #61
67. Nowhere does it say that detention of Americans is PROHIBITED.

It says only that such detention is not REQUIRED for Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
movingviolation Donating Member (47 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-11 02:25 AM
Response to Original message
60. We would be better off if citizens demanded that these senators be locked up.
Edited on Sat Nov-26-11 02:26 AM by movingviolation
Seriously, who the fuck do they think they are? These traitorous bastards have sold us all down the river. Frog march these dickheads.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-11 02:47 AM
Response to Original message
62. Toto, we're not in America amymore...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-11 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
63. Sounds like the groundwork is being laid ...
for a military coup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-11 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. Don't need a military coup. Already had the financial coup, which controls the military.
This latest secret legislation is simply a tightening of the screws that began with with Gitmo and Patriot Act and destruction of habeas corpus,
destruction of our right to trial, and illegal but justified assassination of citizens.
The whole ICE/imprisonment of "illegal" immigrants was the rehearsal.
NOW people are just beginning to add all this up and see it for what it is.

Sadly, anyone bringing up the obvious outcome of the government's actions since 2000 was mocked and called a crackpot.
doesn't sound so "cracked" now, does it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. Agree. Free Speech Zones
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 01:08 AM by upi402
Coming to a town near all of us who question authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 22nd 2014, 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC