S.1867 is the end of America

[Null]

The Senate has, in closed-door committee meetings, come up with a bill that essentially negates the very idea of citizen rights and threatens the freedom of every one of us. S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, features in section 1031 and 1032 the following powers:


(1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

This means that literally, one day federal agents could show up at the door of you, or someone you know, and take them away, without ever having to charge or try them for anything. You can simply be declared an "enemy" and disappeared.

If you have any belief in the rights of the people to not be subject to summary arrest and indefinite detention without charge or trial, you must contact your Senator and tell them to vote YES on the Udall Amendment, which will strip the bill of sections 1031 and 1032.

 

[GasBandit]

It really surprises me that Carl Levin and John McCain would be the masterminds behind this... thing... Levin being Jewish, and McCain being, well, McCain.

 

[Frank]

That is some KGB shit right there.

 

[ScytheRexx]

What in the fuck is this...

 

[Null]

What in the fuck is this...

Our government at work, against us.

 

[strawman]

It makes more explicit the idea that a citizen who acts treasonously against the US can be dealt with militarily, rather than in civil courts. The problem the US currently has is that treason is currently defined as working with a nation against the US. Terrorists often aren't associated with nations, and so they are trying to grapple with the issue - how do you prosecute citizens who conduct military actions against the US.

The court system and laws are not designed to deal with military actions. Citizens are generally covered under the court system and laws of the US.

What should we do, however, to citizens who attack the US and its citizens as a military action?

So the "covered persons" in 1031.b specify those who could be detained.

And yes, it's scary, but it's hardly the "end of america"

However, I don't think people are comfortable with the idea of treason - is Oliver North the last person we've found and convicted as treasonous?

Note that I'm using "treason" here as a convenience - this bill doesn't actually use that word, nor does it affect the official definition of treason. However, there appears to be a gap between a treasonous citizen, and a non-citizen terrorist that we can't currently, successfully, prosecute or punish. This attempts to fill that gap.

Also, I'm making all this up based on my own reading and interpretation of this one small section of the bill - I could be way off my rocker - here, you read it and figure out if it's the end of the USA:

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.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

"The USA is not a police state" - an idiot
Added at: 12:00

I could be way off my rocker

nah, you're just a fascist

 

[GasBandit]

"The USA is not a police state" - an idiot
Added at: 12:00


nah, you're just a fascist

STFU Charlie

 

[Shegokigo]

 

[strawman]

Here's the bill text link, in case anyone wants to poke around and find all the other places where they are ending america:

Bill summary and status:
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112s1867

Table of contents:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867.PCS:/

Section 1031 and on, click on Subtitle D in the table of contents (stupid website doesn't provide direct link).

Note that the Senate Armed Services committee compiled the bill (haha - "closed doors" that's how bills are started ), and its chairperson (Senator Carl Levin [MI-democrat]) submitted it. It's being considered by the senate - now is the time where everyone picks it apart and debates about it. Eventually it will be passed in some form or another because it defines the military budget for 2012 - to the tune of $662 billion, according to the CBO.

The equivalent bill in the house is http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112hr1540

I encourage you to search through it to see if it has anything similar regarding the detainment of citizens.

 

[Sara_2814]

"The USA is not a police state" - an idiot
Added at: 12:00

nah, you're just a fascist

LOL, really? Educating yourself by reading the source material rather than trusting an out-of-context excerpt is "fascism"?

Well, I guess I'm a fascist, too, because Null's excerpt has a whole different meaning when you add in 1031.b and 1032.a.2.

Literacy -- Destroying America One Word at a Time!

 

[makare]

ah yeah i didn't have time to read the whole thing. Excellent.

 

[AshburnerX]

So the "covered persons" in 1031.b specify those who could be detained.

And yes, it's scary, but it's hardly the "end of america"

I think the issue here is exactly what kind of person is "covered" and who gets to decide it. As is, the bill is rife with potential for abuse... potential that WILL be exploited for reasons beyond it's intended purpose, as the PATRIOT Act and Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations have shown us in the past.

Do we really want to have to deal with another Joseph McCarthy?

 

[strawman]

I think the issue here is exactly what kind of person is "covered" and who gets to decide it.

That's the rub. But keep in mind that this is merely a bill, and will be trumped by the constitution, bill of rights, and amendments. If this is used in opposition to the constitution then it will be overturned. So there will be some push and pull as cases are tried.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Do we really want to have to deal with another Joseph McCarthy?

Yes, constantly. He was just another culture warrior throwing out unfounded accusations. Hell, we now have a couple of "24-hour News" channels that do the same thing.

 

[Sara_2814]

Hey, Steinman, your links are broken. To link to a bill, you have to use the "Share/Save" button on the page, and then get the URL from that. So the Summary & Status is at http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112s1867 (then that URL redirects to the links you gave, which are temps and expire with the session, apparently).

Whoever designed that site should be arrested for terrorism.

 

[strawman]

Thanks, Sara. I fixed the links as best I could.

For those who find the links broken in the future, do a web search for "S. 1867" and look for "loc.gov" in the results.

 

[Dave]

The problem is twofold. First, they use loose enough definitions that nearly anyone can be labeled a terrorist or enemy of the state. Think OWS protesters. But it won't hold up in court as it basically removes habeas corpus. The biggest issue is even if it doesn't hold up in court, how long will it take for the law to get to the supreme court and what will be happening to those incarcerated during that time? Even though the bill states that it won't be used against US citizens, it's very easy to label someone so that that portion of the law would no longer affect them and they'd be able to be absconded.

So you are all right. It's a terrible bill but there are protections built in, even if those protections are too easily removed or sidestepped.

Not the end of America, but it's certainly an insidious step towards furthering the police state and further centralizing the power and taking it away from the citizens.

 

[GasBandit]

That's crap. I'm enacting MARTIAN law.

 

[ElJuski]

For some reason I feel like there's wayyyyyyy more context to this shit than what a few knuckleheads on an internet forum are saying.

 

[Dave]

It's 1000 pages. So yeah, I think so.

 

[ElJuski]

Oh, good. But you know, let's all still have a great round of AMERICA FUCKING SUX FASCIST FUCKERS POLICE STATE OH GOD LIKE SYFY CHANNEL PREDICTED

 

[Null]

Yes, because there's nothing that should be alarming about giving the government ill-defined and broad-based power that they can use against their own people.

 

[ElJuski]

There's certainly nothing alarming about thirty words jacked from a thousand-some-page document and posted on Halforums. I'll start being afraid when I hear more from people at the source. The rest of this is just arm chair postulation.

 

[GasBandit]

I'm of the opinion that every "step in that direction" should be fought tooth and nail, because each time it will always just be a "step in that direction" until we've taken enough steps to be there. We don't want to be the frog that is boiled alive slowly.

 

[ElJuski]

By all means. But fighting it tooth and nail might require actually reading the entire document and speaking to somebody--say, a politician-- who might be able to sort it out. But again I doubt this is any step towards anything, and nobody will feel this any time soon.

 

[GasBandit]

By all means. But fighting it tooth and nail might require actually reading the entire document and speaking to somebody--say, a politician-- who might be able to sort it out. But again I doubt this is any step towards anything, and nobody will feel this any time soon.

Smells too much like the patriot act to me. Might turn out to be nothing as you say, but the chance of it being otherwise abused is not one I'm comfortable with.

 

[Adam]

By all means. But fighting it tooth and nail might require actually reading the entire document and speaking to somebody--say, a politician-- who might be able to sort it out. But again I doubt this is any step towards anything, and nobody will feel this any time soon.

You keep your god-damn sensible reactions to yourself mister, this is an INTERNET FORUM!

 

[Necronic]

Thanks for posting the actual wording of the bill Steinman. Infinitely more informative than the original post.

But I do agree with Dave's assesment that the definitions are far to loosely defined and it effectively eliminates Habeus Corpus so it will never survive in courts. That said the point is to remove the courts.....so....yeah that could be a problem.

Also I don't see the necessity of this bill. An american citizen that is overseas working with terrorists can be killed by the government, we already have seen that. And an american citizen that is in country and working with terrorists can be handled by the Justice Department. There is absolutely ZERO reason to eliminate the justice department from this.

I am apalled that they think this is a good idea, and more apalled that it is probably going to get over-reacting "WE LIVE IN A POLICE STATE" responses from the left and similarly ridiculous "Quit being weak on terror!" cries from the right.

I am seriously considering pushing for Canada when my girlfriend chooses her PhD Internship.

 

[Null]

As an update, the Udall amendment, which would have removed sections 1031 and 1032, was voted down 38-60.

 

[GasBandit]

I am apalled that they think this is a good idea, and more apalled that it is probably going to get over-reacting "WE LIVE IN A POLICE STATE" responses from the left and similarly ridiculous "Quit being weak on terror!" cries from the right.

Hrm, given that the bill's sponsor has a D after his name, I think the "right" will more likely try to connect Obama to the bill, or at the very least democrats in general, for leverage in the 2012 election.

 

[strawman]

As an update, the Udall amendment, which would have removed sections 1031 and 1032, was voted down 38-60.

I'd like to see the text of the "Udall Amendment" because I'm hearing reports that it has serious problems - it goes far beyond just removing 1031 and 1032, if reports are to be believed.

 

[Krisken]

Well of course. They need a crazy, fucked up bill that distracts from the crazy fucked up screw the internet bill.

 

[GasBandit]

When they were making constitutional amendments, I think they'd have just simplified everything if they called it a day after the first 5 words.

 

[strawman]

Man, getting through this stuff is painful.

The "Udall amendment" Amendment 1107 strikes all of subtitle D, and replaces it with essentially a requirement that the gov't justify itself for guantanamo, the invasion of Iraq, etc,etc.

Not only does it remove 1031, and 1032, but also 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037. It's essentially grandstanding. "Rather than give you the power you want, I want you to answer for the power you're already exerting."

This is all well and good, except that no one was seriously supporting it. They got the media involved, and got a bit of publicity with some cute soundbites, but anyone who reads the actual amendment knows it's just posturing.

Why doesn't Udall submit an amendment that will actually have some useful effect, that others will vote for? Primarily because this is merely the opening shot in a long, drawn-out process. People are all up in arms about this military bill, but it's going to see a lot of action on the floor - anyone who thinks this is a fast process, and that they better light a fire is simply being used to build the frenzied support some of these senators need to get their slice of the $622 billion pie.

Anyway. Here's the congressional record of the amendment as it was introduced to the senate:

The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To revise the provisions relating to detainee matters)
Strike subtitle D of title X and insert the following:

Subtitle D--Detainee Matters
SEC. 1031. REVIEW 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.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with appropriate officials in the Executive Office of the President, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General, submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the following:
(1) A statement of the position of the Executive Branch on the appropriate role for the Armed Forces of the United States in the detention and prosecution of covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)).
(2) A statement and assessment of the legal authority asserted by the Executive Branch for such detention and prosecution.
(3) A statement of any existing deficiencies or anticipated deficiencies in the legal authority for such detention and prosecution.
(b) Covered Persons.--A covered person under this section is any person, other than a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, whose detention or prosecution by the Armed Forces of the United States is consistent with the laws of war and based on authority provided by any of the following:
(1) The Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40).
(2) The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 2002 (Public Law 107-243).
(3) Any other statutory or constitutional authority for use of military force.
(c) Congressional Action.--Each of the appropriate committees of Congress may, not later than 45 days after receipt of the report required by subsection (a), hold a hearing on the report, and shall, within 45 days of such hearings, report to Congress legislation, if such committee determines legislation is appropriate and advisable, modifying or expanding the authority of the Executive Branch to carry out detention and prosecution of covered persons.
(d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

To find it, go here: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112s1867
Click on "All Congressional Actions With amendments"
Search the page for "S.AMDT.1107"
Then click on the link to the first consideration.
Or something like that. Good luck.