It's lengthy, but it's worth the time it takes to read it.
Reading it now. Will try to find part 1031 because it keeps alluding to it. See ya later.
I'm back. Seems the bill's wording is a bit muddy and hard to understand. But I did find an interesting page that commented how such muddying of understanding could be manipulated to the US government's benefit. Double speak (as in 1984, the novel).
Intelligent comments about the bill 1867.
Excerpt of comments from above link:
permalink
[–]hanahou 6 points 7 days ago
You left other relative parts of Section 1032 out. Post it as not to cause confusion.
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.
IMO I think the article is misinterpreting this as application to American citizens on American soil. I don't believe OWS is in Paragraph 2 section B as an organization to do a terroist attack on US soil.
EDIT: FYI this is the annual Defense bill for appropriation of your tax money and authorization for future actions. Title xvii might be an interesting read on what our military action will continue
permalink
[–]avengingturnip 3 points 7 days ago
Section 1032(b)(1) and (2) while not requiring citizens or lawful resident aliens from being detained extra-judicially does not proscribe doing so either. In other words, subjecting citizens or resident aliens to the provisions of this section is ALLOWED by this section even considering the text of subsection (b)(1) and (2).
permalinkparent
[–]Routerbox 2 points 6 days ago
Here is Lindsey Graham, laying it all out: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428
permalinkparent
[–][deleted] 6 points 7 days ago
Whoops.
(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.
permalink
[–]Skeptic14 8 points 7 days ago
Just because they are not REQUIRED to detain US Citizens, does not mean that they CAN'T do it. This country is DONE.
permalink
[–]sickpharaoh 2 points 6 days ago
There's a subsection in there which allows for agency heads to petition Congress for the right to detain someone as an exception.
permalinkparent
[–]Willravel 6 points 7 days ago
Did anyone even bother to read S. 1867, subsections 1031 and 1032, the bill that allegedly permits military to arrest U.S. Citizens?
Did you read the first comment of the front page submission on this? For the really lazy.
For the really lazy.
permalink
------------------------------------------
Okay, after reading I have to agree that S. 1867 has the seriously possible potential of being a segue into having an amendment of sorts that would allow for the detaining of private American citizens, if the government thinks you are a home grown terrorist or Al Qaeda supporter. Granted, the US would have to be experiencing something like Bosnia back in the 1990s for that to happen though. The bill has a history of obscure language that had bright, lawyer-minded political folks asking something like, "You guys sure about what you just voted on here? Did you actually read what you voted on?"
Just to know that something like this is actually being voted on is kind of weird. Such laws and bills should have been passed decades ago after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. What's so special about Al Qaeda that they get a specific mention? Al Qaeda isn't the first terrorist organization the USA has confronted. South American drug cartels and their criminal influence of their local governments are a good example.
I don't worry about the writing. They will do what they wish, law or no law. It's just a formality. I don't like talking about dead concepts like the Constistution or state's rights. To me, all that went out the window during the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteWhat is interesting is the infiltration of the police, military and border patrol by gangs. We have 2 million gang members in the US! We should thank our lucky stars that they have no real political ambitions.
What gets me is how the media/government covers up the identity of many American terrorists. In my subculture, whenever a story does not have a picture of the offender or mention race, it was a non-white. At the highest levels I don't believe that they are worried about terrorism. It helps them push their agenda.
I believe it was this portion of the bill that freaked folks out:
ReplyDelete"(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph ...
(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."
The US government has a history of screwing up badly and killing innocent people, like the women and kids burned to death at Waco as a current example.
I've noticed the pattern of not mentioning names, race, or adding an image of the perp when it is a non-white when a crime is reported by the media. It's pretty much a given now a days in geographical areas of the USA that non-whites commit a disproportionate amount of the crimes.
Like I heard once, when a White man catches a cold, a Black man catches pneumonia.
The Whites are going to have a tough go in the next few years economically, but the non-Whites are really going to suffer. I've seen this over and over living in Mississippi my whole life as local economies boomed then busted.
Prepare for more mobs of Black teenage kids harassing folks at convenience stores while stealing petty things like candy bars and soda pop. This is just the start, the testing of how much they can get away with.
I keep a pistol and a razor sharp fighting knife on me when I go out shopping or drive out of town to take care of business because of these flash mob teenagers. I want trouble with no one, but after having a guy try to carjack me with a really long screwdriver at my throat, I pity the next one that tries it. Used a pistol then to stop him and will do it again to stop the next one. And I don't care what color the carjacker's hide is.
It's going to get worse before it gets better and I'm prepping the best I can.
After the CIA was busted for distributing drugs to LA gangs, I've lost faith in them. They serve the Beast, as far as I'm concerned.