• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At

K

katsung47

Banned
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
879
Reaction score
128
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How could those law makers propose to abandon our basic rights?

Secret Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At Home Or Abroad
Robert Johnson | Nov. 28, 2011,

From the ACLU's website:

In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/secret-bill-to-be-voted-on-today-would-allow-the-military-to-sweep-up-us-citizens-at-home-or-abroad-2011-11
Click to expand...
 
Does this have any chance to pass?
 
F**** Mcain and anyone else who supports this bill, small government my ass.
 
A lot of additional info was posted and discussed in this other thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...emand-military-lock-up-american-citizens.html

While many of us disagree on the implications of it - we do agree that the ACLU page is misleading in their reasons - the Udall Amendment only applied to S 1031 - leaving S 1032 still up for complaint. Their article also doesn't explain their other opposition which they worked into the wording of the e-petition.
 
I seriously worry for the well being of this nation when lawmakers even so much as consider bills such as these. Less government is better government.
 
Well, the bill appears to have passed. Will Obama, who's never made civil rights a huge cornerstone of his presidency, veto it?
 
Cardinal said:
Well, the bill appears to have passed. [...]
Click to expand...
Not yet. The Udall amendment to remove some of the onerous provisions failed. The Senate has yet to vote on the entire bill, which would then go to reconciliation with the House (who have already passed a bill with similar detention provisions) to iron out the differences before being sent to the White House.
 
Mmmm...more and more government control.

I'm surprised that people can still think that any part of the Republocrats could stand for smaller government when they increase government at every opportunity.
 
FYI- This bill does not allow American citizens to be arrested in the USA and held without charge or trial.
 
(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.

regardless of what the chicken-littles and Conspiracy Theorists say, this law is no big deal.
 
Ikari said:
Mmmm...more and more government control.

I'm surprised that people can still think that any part of the Republocrats could stand for smaller government when they increase government at every opportunity.
Click to expand...

This wouldn't be an increase in government as in size, but rather an increase in executive power. If the bill passes as outlined, all I have to say is, "Goodbye 4th Amendment, Hello New USA Patriot Act."

Seems those who want an Empirical Presidency will stop at nothing to broaden presidential powers at the expense of personal liberty. Funny though...not once have I heard Mark Levin discussing this issue. And he's been the biggest blow-heart on "liberty and tyranny." Sarcasm? Yeah, alittle, but you'd think the one person who has been trumpeting "Beware, Beware! Your liberty's being taken away little by little" would be all over this one.

EDIT:

Thunder said:
(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.
Click to expand...
regardless of what the chicken-littles and Conspiracy Theorists say, this law is no big deal.
Click to expand...

Thank goodness somebody saw reason.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens- [...] this law is no big deal.
Click to expand...
Actually it is a big deal since it usurps the President's Commander in Chief authority in Section 1032, where your quote comes from (note the word "shall", which mandates this detention by Congressional fiat rather than Commander-in-Chief discretion):

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. [...]

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
Click to expand...

Beyond that, while Section 1032 above does exempt American citizens from "military" custody, Section 1031 below does not:

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).

same link as above
Click to expand...

Nor does the AUMF (PL 107-40) below exempt American citizens (and Section 1031 of the new Senate bill merely confirms this particular AUMF while enumerating the military power to detain (in bold above)):

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces


(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.​


Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

So... there are indeed some things afoot. First, Congress is trying to take some command functions away from the President, and second, they are legislating legal detention by military forces (certainly beyond the basic prisoner of war situation). Nothing in these two sections, nor the AUMF above, would prohibit the military from arresting an American citizen and handing them over to civilian authorities to be detained indefinitely without charge and without trial.

Remember the underwear bomber? Congress wants people like that permanently locked up by the military and, I'd imagine, tortured. It didn't happen in that case, and their bloodlust was left wanting.
 
Karl said:
Actually it is a big deal since it usurps the President's Commander in Chief authority in Section 1032, where your quote comes from (note the word "shall", which mandates this detention by Congressional fiat rather than Commander-in-Chief discretion):....
Click to expand...

its very simple: it is unConstitutional for ANY American citizen or legal alien within the USA, to be held indefinitely without trial or charge. The only way to change this is with an Amendment to the Constitution.

folks can keep scaring themselves all they like, but its just silly.
 
Thunder said:
regardless of what the chicken-littles and Conspiracy Theorists say, this law is no big deal.
Click to expand...
Thunder said:
its very simple: it is unConstitutional for ANY American citizen or legal alien within the USA, to be held indefinitely without trial or charge.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the American citizens who have already been detained without charge. I'd suggest you tell it to those who have been murdered but obviously the dead cannot hear you.
 
Thunder said:
its very simple: it is unConstitutional for ANY American citizen or legal alien within the USA, to be held indefinitely without trial or charge. [...]
Click to expand...
Why do you think they ship the detainees to Gitmo? Like, duh! :doh
 
Karl said:
Why do you think they ship the detainees to Gitmo? Like, duh! :doh
Click to expand...

name one American citizen who was arrested in the USA, who is at GITMO.

name on legal alien who was arrested in the USA, who is at GITMO.
 
Thunder said:
name one American citizen who was arrested in the USA, who is at GITMO.

name on legal alien who was arrested in the USA, who is at GITMO.
Click to expand...
Now you're changing your tune:

Thunder said:
its very simple: it is unConstitutional for ANY American citizen or legal alien within the USA, to be held indefinitely without trial or charge. [...]
Click to expand...
My reply was predicated on citizens being held "within the USA". If you meant something else, try to improve the grammar.

At least one U.S. citizen has been held at GITMO, having been arrested overseas. Is your argument that U.S. citizens who are arrested by the U.S. military overseas have no constitutional rights? Otherwise your query above makes no sense.
 
Karl said:
Why do you think they ship the detainees to Gitmo? Like, duh! :doh
Click to expand...
If i remember right the bill would also allow them to move prisoners to any entity. Even foriegn.
 
Karl said:
Now you're changing your tune:


My reply was predicated on citizens being held "within the USA". If you meant something else, try to improve the grammar.

At least one U.S. citizen has been held at GITMO, having been arrested overseas. Is your argument that U.S. citizens who are arrested by the U.S. military overseas have no constitutional rights? Otherwise your query above makes no sense.
Click to expand...

this new law, and the whole hoopla over it, is in regards to people arrested IN the USA..is it not?
 
Thunder said:
this new law, and the whole hoopla over it, is in regards to people arrested IN the USA..is it not?
Click to expand...

From the OP:


"Secret Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At Home Or Abroad[/U]"​



So, the answer to you question would appear to be no.

However, as I mentioned to the first person to mention this new bill to me (in person), as I understand it the original AUMF (against terrorists) allowed military force to be used against U.S. citizens, so it therefore seemed to me that some were late to the party (or the hoopla, if you like). As I review the two sections of the bill, I see that it not only reinforces and amplifies the AUMF, it also confiscates power from the commander-in-chief.

Congress has not only declared perpetual war, they now want to run it.
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
...As I review the two sections of the bill, I see that it not only reinforces and amplifies the AUMF, it also confiscates power from the commander-in-chief.

Congress has not only declared perpetual war, they now want to run it.
Click to expand...

wow, sounds like martial law!!

;)
 
Karl said:
... as I understand it the original AUMF (against terrorists) allowed military force to be used against U.S. citizens ...
Click to expand...

I had this same debate a few months ago and came to the same conclusion. My conclusion is essentially the same, it seems that Congress wants to make the so-called War on Terror permanent in order to retain these powers ad infinitum.
 
This is an abomination
 
TNAR said:
I had this same debate a few months ago and came to the same conclusion. My conclusion is essentially the same, it seems that Congress wants to make the so-called War on Terror permanent in order to retain these powers ad infinitum.
Click to expand...

How long have I been using the term "forever war" with y'all. Of course they want it forever, it's a hallmark of a fascist state and one under authoritarian control by the government. Which way do you think Congress is going? 1984 is a playbook to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom