Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SaintPete

(533 posts)
89. That's Not Correct!
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:46 PM
Dec 2011

here's the latest revision from the congressional record. As you can see, Feinstin's "Nothing in this section shall be construed" amendment is included, and is shown in bold, green text. But the "requirement" text that YOU claim has been changed to "authorized" (shown in bold, blue text) still stands. Care to comment?

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.

[FONT COLOR="green"](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.[/FONT COLOR="green"]

(f) 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-

[FONT COLOR="blue"] (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.[/FONT COLOR="blue"]

(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.


Why don't you trust secret panels noise Dec 2011 #1
:rofl: limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #6
Well, it will be our freedom loving military doing the deciding who is to be kidnapped. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #21
How did you know that the secret panels are secret? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #67
I didn't see the not, this is bad news. sarcasmo Dec 2011 #2
There is NO reason to veto it, please see comment #11 :) n/t Tx4obama Dec 2011 #12
Tex 4 Obama, please explain. Mimosa Dec 2011 #16
Here is Section 1032 - American citizens in The USA are exempt Tx4obama Dec 2011 #36
This message was self-deleted by its author Tx4obama Dec 2011 #37
It's not clear cut Aerows Dec 2011 #40
Here is Section 1031 - which includes the Feinstein amendment language (e) 'bolded' Tx4obama Dec 2011 #41
Read that analysis Aerows Dec 2011 #44
it says throwing Americans in jail forever is OPTIONAL. provis99 Dec 2011 #50
Your link timed out. The problems are with section 1031, not 1032, as I understand it. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #66
Obama just totally lost my vote peacebird Dec 2011 #3
again? jefferson_dem Dec 2011 #5
Hubby says he will not vote for him period. I fluctuate between no and he's better than repukes peacebird Dec 2011 #91
Why? n/t bhikkhu Dec 2011 #8
Another reason to Primary Obama RC Dec 2011 #4
Epic Obama FAIL. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #7
Why? bhikkhu Dec 2011 #9
They are ignoring sections 1031 and 1032 which explicitly excludes AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #20
Yes you are correct. See comments #36 and #41 for the text of those two sections. n/t Tx4obama Dec 2011 #42
There is NOTHING which "explicitly excludes" detaining US Citizens SaintPete Dec 2011 #74
Here -- AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #82
I don't think you read past my subjec line SaintPete Dec 2011 #86
I was being ironic. AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #88
That's Not Correct! SaintPete Dec 2011 #89
No response to post #89? SaintPete Dec 2011 #90
it's easier to whiz on Obama than read an article. spanone Dec 2011 #45
There is NO reason to veto it, please see comment #11 :) n/t Tx4obama Dec 2011 #14
there is NO reason to vote for it..nt xiamiam Dec 2011 #51
So, you're against 'the whole DoDA bill'? or just sections 1031 and 1032 Tx4obama Dec 2011 #53
Really? green917 Dec 2011 #76
"Don't buy into the hysteria" savalez Dec 2011 #10
He's the only one I've heard that people are discussing Aerows Dec 2011 #72
He spent another hour on it today. savalez Dec 2011 #79
There is NO reason to veto it. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #11
You like the idea of the military being able to pick of "suspects" anywhere in the world? Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #19
Oh... so it's ok as long as they aren't US citizens... SomethingFishy Dec 2011 #24
That appears to be the defense noise Dec 2011 #27
heh, it's very clever wording but still bad spooked911 Dec 2011 #28
Glad they added (e) sarcasmo Dec 2011 #39
Bernie Sanders thinks there is Aerows Dec 2011 #73
At least that was fixed. AverageJoe90 Dec 2011 #83
AP article from today Aerows Dec 2011 #13
Yes, apparently the AP is misreporting it. Perhaps they did not read the Feinstein amendment. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #29
Are you saying it isn't done without this legislation? bhikkhu Dec 2011 #30
And Section 1032 exempts/excludes U.S. citizens that live in The USA. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #35
This is horribly written legislation Aerows Dec 2011 #47
ding! FirstLight Dec 2011 #48
Probably........ AverageJoe90 Dec 2011 #84
ACLU was recommending against it on Dec. 9th TBF Dec 2011 #15
The ACLU just released this tonight. ForgoTheConsequence Dec 2011 #22
Thank you - TBF Dec 2011 #25
Unless congress declares war on the OWS movement, I think we're ok bhikkhu Dec 2011 #31
Congress didn't declare war on Japanese-Americans during WWII. OnyxCollie Dec 2011 #54
they sure didn't, and they have been preparing for unrest TBF Dec 2011 #60
This bill wouldn't have allowed it. bhikkhu Dec 2011 #78
Uh, you do know that second-generation Japanese Americans, OnyxCollie Dec 2011 #81
Ah, but you need to think Berlin Expat Dec 2011 #70
What I see as more likely is that the fear of indefinite detention modifies people's behaviors bhikkhu Dec 2011 #80
bingo..nt xiamiam Dec 2011 #52
Here's ProSense Dec 2011 #17
Is that a flip-flop? Flop-flip? Or, just a SOP politician's lie? Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #18
This is pissing a lot of people off. nt DocMac Dec 2011 #23
yeah, because it's outrageous and terrible and un-American spooked911 Dec 2011 #33
I think the only reason people are pissed is because they have NOT read the bill Tx4obama Dec 2011 #43
There are several people who have copied and pasted parts of the bill Aerows Dec 2011 #46
I think you're wrong-- I think people are pissed because they see a system way out of control spooked911 Dec 2011 #57
We are pissed off because we HAVE read the bill, and we know about KBR's contract to build detention TBF Dec 2011 #61
Actually, I'm pissed because I HAVE read the bill SaintPete Dec 2011 #75
I agree. DocMac Dec 2011 #49
Well, to hell with him and every traitor that voted "aye". There should be consequences for TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #26
we're into deep deep corruption levels spooked911 Dec 2011 #34
lindsey graham 'shut up' video limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #32
An analysis Aerows Dec 2011 #38
thanks-- that was my impression too spooked911 Dec 2011 #58
Thanks for the link. AverageJoe90 Dec 2011 #85
He should veto it based on spending alone... nt Modern_Matthew Dec 2011 #55
Not what it seems: caseymoz Dec 2011 #56
I feel like it's 2006 and deja vu all over again. Vinca Dec 2011 #59
Thank you. TBF Dec 2011 #62
This is really, really, really, really... thescreaminghead Dec 2011 #63
The assholes have the votes to override a veto. era veteran Dec 2011 #64
DC "Democrats" stand for NOTHING: blkmusclmachine Dec 2011 #65
Shocked! Not.... blackspade Dec 2011 #68
Huge surprise there NorthCarolina Dec 2011 #69
Is this America anymore? roamer65 Dec 2011 #71
It's As If Obama Is Going Out Of His Way To Lose My Vote. Paladin Dec 2011 #77
With 87 votes in place, it would have been a waste of time to even consider it tjwash Dec 2011 #87
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama will not veto Natio...»Reply #89