McCain's Terror Bill: American citizens will be sent to military prisons

[mrjarrell]

The treachery is almost complete. Obama is our last hope now.

Its amazing that a Republican minority can hold up a bill like Obamacare for a full year... but when it comes to a disturbing expansion of the Federal Police State, there is not so much as a whimper from them. They overwhelmingly endorse it. Pathetic.

It's the wet dream world for the gop and their adherents, why should we expect them to vote otherwise?

 

[KG1]

My take on all of this is that it's a disagreement on who should be able to take custody of accused al-Qaeda terrorists.

The ones pushing for this bill are saying that the military should because they are enemy combatants. The administration is saying no, they should be remanded to civilian LE so they can process them through the legal system and if the military gets priority it could hamper their investigations into terrorist suspects in the U.S.

This all seems to tie in with the previous dust up on whether captured enemy combatants and terror suspects should be tried in civilian courts or by military tribunals.

The only problem with this new dimension now is that it doesn't even protect American citizens on U.S. soil and denies them the right to due process if accused.

The part that I find curious though is apparently the authors of the bill tried to strike a compromise early on and give the administration some leeway and leave it up to their discretion if it's in the interest of national security.

He (Sen. Carl Levin) and Arizona Sen. John McCain, the ranking Republican on his committee, had struck a deal earlier this month on giving the military priority custody, while allowing the administration to waive that and give civilian authorities priority if it deems the waiver in the interests of national security

Senate defies Obama veto threat in terrorist custody vote - Washington Times

 

[Lead Head]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Now that the "pissing match" is over from earlier posts, perhaps we can begin to see the need to unite to protect our freedom/s, our children's freedom/s and their children's freedom/s.

It's not that I don't like a good pissing match now and then or even the tinfoil fashions of the day, but if the Patriot Act wasn't enough (obviously it wasn't) now we have Act II. I don't think I want to see Act III because the drama will surely be the stake in the heart of liberty. She's bleeding now and a few more wounds and she just may bleed out.

I don't have any magic answers and don't like the direction my country is going, and I'm not suggesting ANYTHING subliminal. I am asking that we on INGO start finding a way to further peacefully unite. We are not the bad guys (or girls) but it would seem that a gray area is on the horizon. Personally I don't want to wake up in someone's skewed gray area with a muzzle three inches from my face. They wouldn't get that close but you get the point.

We are lawful, smart and have way more in common than we give ourselves credit for. Putting it all together is where it's at. Getting there is another matter.

We are living in someone's future, right here and now and if that someone was one of our Founders, he would be very unhappy.

It will take all of us to save someone else's future.

 

[hornadylnl]

The treachery is almost complete. Obama is our last hope now.

Its amazing that a Republican minority can hold up a bill like Obamacare for a full year... but when it comes to a disturbing expansion of the Federal Police State, there is not so much as a whimper from them. They overwhelmingly endorse it. Pathetic.

But anybody is better than Obama.

I swear most people are more wrapped up in being a diehard fan for their team than they are for admitting the obvious. Every republican congressman, senator, and president could personally execute Americans and there would still be those singing the chorus that repubs are better than democrats.

 

[mrjarrell]

But anybody is better than Obama.

I swear most people are more wrapped up in being a diehard fan for their team than they are for admitting the obvious. Every republican congressman, senator, and president could personally execute Americans and there would still be those singing the chorus that repubs are better than democrats.

Dangit! It won't let me rep you. Well, we'll just have to go with QFT!

 

[pirate]

-1 McCain


-1 every politician that are for this nonsense.

+1 Rambone for giving me daily tinfoilery. Every once in awhile a gem pops out.

 

[KG1]

Every republican congressman, senator, and president could personally execute Americans and there would still be those singing the chorus that repubs are better than democrats.

This part here might be a little bit of a stretch.

 

[MadBomber]

This part here might be a little bit of a stretch.

Not much of one.

 

[hornadylnl]

This part here might be a little bit of a stretch.

Stretch? I'm hoping the repub nominee wins so I can come here to read all manner of excuses and justifications for the liberalism oozing out of the white house. There are some here who can't acknowledge a single negative about a republican and get personal with anyone who dares to point one out.

I too made excuses for Bush's liberal super majority until I could no longer stomach it.

 

[ocsdor]

The treachery is almost complete. Obama is our last hope now....

"No. There is another." -yoda

 

[rambone]

"No. There is another." -yoda

 

[UncleMike]

OK
Kirk posted a short summary of the provisions of this Bill that states that the detention provisions DO NOT apply to American Citizens, or legal Resident Aliens.
I agree with him completely!!
Here is the pertinent text, (Minus the sentence references)
Font color and bold fonts are my additions and in no way affect, or change the actual text.


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.

 

[KG1]

Stretch? I'm hoping the repub nominee wins so I can come here to read all manner of excuses and justifications for the liberalism oozing out of the white house. There are some here who can't acknowledge a single negative about a republican and get personal with anyone who dares to point one out.

I too made excuses for Bush's liberal super majority until I could no longer stomach it.

So you are actually suggesting that some would defend anybody with an designated "R" next to their name if they started executing American citizens?

I don't believe there is anyone here who hasn't acknowledged that all of the candidates have negatives.

 

[rambone]

OK
Kirk posted a short summary of the provisions of this Bill that states that the detention provisions DO NOT apply to American Citizens, or legal Resident Aliens.
I agree with him completely!!
Here is the pertinent text, (Minus the sentence references)
Font color and bold fonts are my additions and in no way affect, or change the actual text.

No. I debunked this in reply #14. The language that would have excluded American citizens has been removed, according to the author of the bill. Now the bill can be applied to anybody.

The text you posted is an old version of the bill, that no longer exists. The White House told the authors to make the bill more ambiguous and sinister, and they said, "Yes boss!"

CARL LEVIN: Just one other question, and that has to do with somebody, an American citizen, that is captured in the United States and the application of the custody pending a Presidential waiver to such a person. I'm wondering whether the Senator is familiar with the language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services committee, and the Administration asked us to remove the language that says the American citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section. Is the Senator familiar with the fact that it was the Administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee, and that we removed it at the request of the Administration, that would have said that this determination would not apply to U.S. citizens and lawful residents. I'm just wondering if the Senator is familiar with the fact that it was the Administration which asked us to remove the very language, the absence of which is now objected to by the Senator from Illinois?

MARK UDALL: I'm familiar now because the Senator from Michigan has shared that fact with me. I'm also familiar that the Administration has other questions and concerns which has caused it to issue a set of provisions and issues that they would like pursued.

Its not too late to get a tinfoil hat. What size do you wear?

 

[KG1]

No. I debunked this in reply #14. The language that would have excluded American citizens has been removed, according to the author of the bill. Now the bill can be applied to anybody.

The text you posted is an old version of the bill, that no longer exists. The White House told the authors to make the bill more ambiguous and sinister, and they said, "Yes boss!"

​

Its not too late to get a tinfoil hat. What size do you wear?

That seems to be the whole problem. We don't have an updated version and it's creating alot of confusion not only here but throughout the interwebz as to what it actually says.

Other than what you provided here I haven't been able to find anything as of yet stating that the language has been dropped.

 

[KG1]

UM, apparently the part you hi-lighted in blue has been removed.

 

[UncleMike]

No. I debunked this in reply #14. The language that would have excluded American citizens has been removed, according to the author of the bill. Now the bill can be applied to anybody.

The text you posted is an old version of the bill, that no longer exists. The White House told the authors to make the bill more ambiguous and sinister, and they said, "Yes boss!" Its not too late to get a tinfoil hat. What size do you wear?

I don't think so..
My post is taken from a letter written by Sen. Rubio’s Office on Monday 11/28/11.
Explanation from Sen. Rubio’s Office about the Controversial National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 : Palm Beach County Tea Party
Here's the link to the US Senate Periodical Press Gallery web site as of today 11/29/11.
U.S. Senate Periodical Press Gallery
The only mention of an amendment to change the Military Detention provisions are The Udall amendment, which failed 61/37.
EDIT....
This is the Library of Congress link with, what I believe, is the final version of the Bill which still shows sec 1032 in the Bill.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:s.01867:

 

[ray d]

I am not calling for the murder of members of congress.They will be given a day in court thats more than they are giving us .Just the fact that this bill is in congress shows how crazy they are.

 

[UncleMike]

I am not calling for the murder of members of congress.They will be given a day in court thats more than they are giving us .Just the fact that this bill is in congress shows how crazy they are.

Aaahhh.....
A trial then the hanging.
Very nice of you.

 

[88GT]

Stretch? I'm hoping the repub nominee wins so I can come here to read all manner of excuses and justifications for the liberalism oozing out of the white house. There are some here who can't acknowledge a single negative about a republican and get personal with anyone who dares to point one out.

I too made excuses for Bush's liberal super majority until I could no longer stomach it.

Who's making excuses for anybody? Name him (or her). Just one. I haven't read a single post from anybody on this sight excusing an R from his transgression simply for his membership in the said group.