National Defense Authorization Act sections 1031 and 1032

FilthyFizzle

Active Member
I got this from http://pastebin.com/qN51iztQ

Time to get your shit together and walk a tight line. You do not want to be considered a terrorist. We all have a lot of thinking to do.....:confused: That new light may not be your biggest concern right now.

Ahem,

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.
 

deprave

New Member
It is scary but I have yet to see an explanation for this part:

"(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."

and a few other words in there seem to make it clear to me that this doesn't apply to United States Citizens. Can you explain that?
 

FilthyFizzle

Active Member
I think they are going to vote in a couple more things in the next few days. I think Amendment is 1068 going to hurt. Let me read more...
 

FilthyFizzle

Active Member
(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.

Alex Jones is going to be the first one to go. Poor guy, he will get it bad.
 

deprave

New Member
(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.

Alex Jones is going to be the first one to go. Poor guy, he will get it bad.
The next part says American Citizens are immune to this entire section though..


"(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."
 

deprave

New Member
What is your point? What are you worried about?
The Law? Justice? The government is supposed to follow the law also you know..its not just us. If it was true then this would go against philosophy and the law completely. Ever since the dawn of civilization...but It doesn't look to be true to me, it does say American Citizens are immune but I still don't trust something like this..
 

patlpp

New Member
The Law? Justice? The government is supposed to follow the law also you know..its not just us. If it was true then this would go against philosophy and the law completely. Ever since the dawn of civilization...but It doesn't look to be true to me, it does say American Citizens are immune but I still don't trust something like this..

Is it the definition of a "Covered " person? What specifically in this bill is not lawful? Is it just a matter of your lack of trust? Do you think they will use this to squelch free speech?
 

deprave

New Member
But a United States Citizen can't be defined as a 'Covered Person'...so therefore not unlawfull...The unlawfull part would be if it was true that United States Citizens can be detained indefinitely without a trial and by the military at that. Additionally, this would go against every political philosophy in all of written history without one exception.
 

Purplestickeypunch

Active Member
The next part says American Citizens are immune to this entire section though..


"(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."
They've already blown up a few US citizens via drone attacks. Including a 16 year old. The Constitution also states that congress has to approve acts of war. Obama blew Libya to hell without congressional approval. What makes you think this will be respected?
 

deprave

New Member
They've already blown up a few US citizens via drone attacks. Including a 16 year old. The Constitution also states that congress has to approve acts of war. Obama blew Libya to hell without congressional approval. What makes you think this will be respected?
Didn't say that, I am just saying this doesn't allow for that as people infer. It is some scarey bullshit and outright wrong according to every great philosopher for 10's of thousands of years, but It does say clearly that American Citizens are exempt, contrary to what the ACLU and others are saying.
 

deprave

New Member
How does he make it clear thou? I think when most of congress and the senate...and also the ACLU are against this...There is probably something to it...but I don't really see how its that clear..maybe I am just being stupid but it clearly states that American Citizens are not eligible, can you please show my dumbass how I am wrong about that?

Also something from that article, Amash calls the legislation “one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime.” ...Thats kind funny, because he said the same thing about the patriot act yet he added, "The most anti-liberty legislation"...I am a big fan of amash but id like to know why he possibly thinks the patriot act would be worse then this? I am sure he doesn't actually think that, I am just cherry picking words but wouldn't the Patroit Act be the Ramp up to this?

Anyway, just so you guys know, thanks to Rand Paul..This shit has been shot down for now...but it looks like its getting back up...and rands only got a muzzle loader and its going to be tough to reload in time for BRAAAAAAAAAAAINSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHH

 

blimey

Active Member
it clearly states that American Citizens are not eligible, can you please show my dumbass how I am wrong about that?
"One section authorizes the military to indefinitely detain without charge individuals – including American citizens apprehended on U.S. soil – who are suspected of involvement with terrorism."
There was an amendment by Mark Udall supported a lot of people but the senate vetoed it. The Udall amendment removes several clauses including the one above.
Read about it here. http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2011/11/29/national-security-at-risk-as-udall-webb-amendment-fails-to-pass-senate/
 

deprave

New Member
So I mean ...that article is just more heresay...al be it credible...not denying it..Id just really like to know how that section does such when its stated in that very section that American Citizens do not qualify. Could you show me specifically in the bill? and clearly explain it?
 

deprave

New Member
Ok now I see it, The section in question would be section 1031, section 1032 doesn't actually pertain to section 1031....very fine print there..so American Citizens couldn't be detained as "CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR" However, we could be detained as per section 1031 indefinitely by the military..We could become Guantanamo detainees or Bradley Manning basically...


@ Dukeanthony
Yea Obama totally wouldn't support that! HE TOTALLY WOULDN'T BE COOL WITH BRADLEY MANNING OR GUANTANAMO BAY LMAO!
 

deprave

New Member
Maybe so but obama says "he broke the law and for that he should face the consequence" ...If he actually said..."Hes a traitor" or "hes guilty of treason" that would be quite different..It wouldn't be the real Obama, the man that doesn't give a shit about the constitution or you or I..
 
Top