National Defense Authorization Act sections 1031 and 1032

The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
Read the text. It's explicitly clear as to how this does not pertain to Americans living inside the US, and that Americans are protected by the Constitution.

Furthermore, the entire subsection D in question specifically addresses detainees at Guantanamo.

So, if you were arrested for plotting attacks WITHIN the US, you would be arrested and afforded all the protections of the Constitution.

If you are plotting, staging, and aiding attacks against the US from OUTSIDE the US you will then fall under the "unprivileged belligerents" category.

Make sense?
 
blimey

blimey

Active Member
Watch the video. He goes on to say (paraphrasing, but you can watch the video if you want a quote) that if you are arrested for terrorism inside the U.S. you are an agent for the enemy and will be dealt with as such. He says citizenship is not a "get out of jail free card."
He even references the Padilla case, in which the supreme court ruled that it was ok to hold an American citizen for 4 years in military prison with no trial. He was arrested in Chicago
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
Rhetoric versus text, which he neglects to reference subsection D of the section in question...which affords constitutional protections to American citizens apprehended IN the US.

Read the text of the bill. Graham has his political motivations for misprepresenting the issue.

Subtitle D--Detainee Matters





SEC. 1031. AUTHORITY TO DETAIN UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS CAPTURED PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
  • (a) In General- The Armed Forces of the United States are authorized to detain covered persons captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) as unprivileged enemy belligerents pending disposition under the law of war.
  • (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person, including but not limited to persons for whom detention is required under section 1032, 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) Long-term detention under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities against the nations, organizations, and persons subject to 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) Constitutional Limitation on Applicability to United States Persons- The authority to detain a person under this section does not extend to the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens 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.
 
blimey

blimey

Active Member
The government has proved before that the constitution is open to interpretation. If this is how it's represented I believe that is how it will be interpreted.
 
blimey

blimey

Active Member
Your right. Still, the supreme court already ruled it was not unconstitutional to hold US citizens in military prisons for as long as they want with no trial if they are suspected to be terrorists. This will only give that more power.
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
Yes, if you are picked up from outside the US.

Padilla was flying in from Pakistan...immediately after getting off of the plane.

This doesn't grant any new powers, it's just another mundane proceeding being blown out of proportion by blowhards.
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
It's politics man, anything that can be used to make the current administration look bad will be used, even if it's a continuation of policy from the Bush era...

American politics is just bunk.
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
It's an annual budget bill, it's going to get passed regardless, in one form or another. I have tried to show in several places now how it DOES NOT affect American citizens apprehended in the US, to what avail is yet to be seen...

It's going to be passed, and probably in the current form...I didn't take the time to read the other 1300 pages, but that's because no one is bitching about the other 1300 pages, and I only sought to clarify the section in question.

If fundamentally you are asking if I support the funding of the armed forces, yes, absolutely I do. Tirades aside, it is a fundamental component of American Life.
 
FilthyFizzle

FilthyFizzle

Active Member
The Ruiner said:
It's an annual budget bill, it's going to get passed regardless, in one form or another. I have tried to show in several places now how it DOES NOT affect American citizens apprehended in the US, to what avail is yet to be seen...

It's going to be passed, and probably in the current form...I didn't take the time to read the other 1300 pages, but that's because no one is bitching about the other 1300 pages, and I only sought to clarify the section in question.

If fundamentally you are asking if I support the funding of the armed forces, yes, absolutely I do. Tirades aside, it is a fundamental component of American Life.
Click to expand...
I support funding a strong military to protect ourselves. The thing is we aren't being attacked.. We are attacking them

I would rather have terrorist trying to fuck us up in our own land than to have a law that can allow whoever to kick doors down and detain without trial.. The U.S. Citizens can take care of themselves with or without the military

I know its an annual bill. Based on what you know about it and you were a senator, would you give it your vote?
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
These things start slowly, a base needs to be constructed first. Then later the law allowing US citizens to be classified as enemies will also come to pass and all of these new laws will also come into effect. These things just build up over time, it doesn't all come at once.

You will start seeing way more "Domestic Terrorism" than ever before. Of course the FBI will always have an informant nearby.........

This needs to be done to justify the final change.
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
These things start slowly, a base needs to be constructed first. Then later the law allowing US citizens to be classified as enemies will also come to pass and all of these new laws will also come into effect. These things just build up over time, it doesn't all come at once.

You will start seeing way more "Domestic Terrorism" than ever before. Of course the FBI will always have an informant nearby.........

This needs to be done to justify the final change.
Click to expand...
http://web4health.info/it/add-cannabis-paranoia.htm
 
deprave

deprave

New Member
I am still not sure I am convinced that section 1031 or 1032 allows for American Citzens to be detained because it says they are immune...

Even though the author of the bill said they could be...

But I think what is really concerning here is that Military will be on the streets and possibly in violation of
Posse Comitatus...who says the wont arrest people for no good reason really, what if they conduct searches and shit? There is Posse Comitatus for a reason you know...this could get ugly... What about Homeland Security coordinating local law enforcement to arrest Occupy Wall street based on local ordinances, its kind of the same thing only reverse.

for those of you that don't know:

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) that was 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 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.
 
deprave

deprave

New Member
but I mean lets forget about all that for a momment, lets forgot about the possibility that they will be able to detain american citizens per the bills author and the ACLU..


Now ask yourself...Do any of you want to live in a war zone? What are the repercussions of living in a war zone? Do you realize that they have declared the United States a war zone? Should any of us support this notion? Does anyone really want to live in a war zone? I really don't think so...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top