U.S. Military to go after U.S. Citizens? S-1867

 

 

Dear Billie,
 
 
Today, the Senator’s office received many emails and phone calls voicing concerns over the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.  There have been many assertions made about these provisions, some of which could not be further from the truth.  It just so happens these outlandish accusations are from the ACLU and their allies in Congress.
 
 
First off, this bill does not allow the US military to supplant your local police department in carrying out typical law enforcement activities.  Section 1031 only affirms the authority that the president currently has to detain certain people pursuant to the current military force authorization; in fact, this bill says that nothing in this section is intended to expand the president’s power.  In addition, in reaffirming the president’s authority to detain people, this section specifically limits the people who can be detained under this act to only those people who planned or helped carry out the 9/11 attacks on the United States or people who are a member of or substantially support Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that fighting against the US and its coalition partners.  Simply put, you need to be involved with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or one of its surrogates and you have to make a deliberate act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror to be detained under this act.
 
 
Section 1032 of this bill deals with the requirements that are needed for the U.S. military to hold people in custody.  This portion of the act differs from section 1031 in that this section deals with a much more select group of people that must be detained by the U.S. Military.  Any person detained under the authority of Section 1032 must be a member or part of Al-Qaeda or an associated force AND they must have participated in the planning or execution of an attack against the US or our coalition partners.  In addition, this section of the act has a limiting clause that specifically states that the military detention requirement does not extend to US citizens or lawful permanent residents.
 
 
I want to thank you all for reaching out to the office to voice your concerns on this bill.  I want to assure you that Senator Rubio and his staff always have, and always will, listen to your concerns and address them in a timely fashion.
 
 
The Senator has proposed 2 Amendments to prevent the President from transferring foreign terrorists to the U.S. to be prosecuted in the federal court system. However, in regard to the idea that this bill allows the U.S. military to supplant our local police departments and detain otherwise law abiding citizens for purchasing gold or guns is unfounded.  Those types of measures are not included in this bill; moreover, the Senator would never support them.  If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me.
 
 
Please find the text of Section 1031 and 1032 below.
 
 
Sincerely Yours,
J.R.
 
J.R. Sanchez
Director of Outreach
Office of United States Senator Marco Rubio
Hart 317
Washington DC 20510
202-224-3041


 
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.
 
 
S-1867   http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c1122nzrBD:e46...:

 

U.S. Code Title 10 Chapter 47A    http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C47A.txt

 

Title XVIII Public Law 111-84      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:6:./temp/~c111ljjjRh:e12...:

 

Public Law 107-40   http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:3:./temp/~c107Fvd7l7::
 
 
 
 
 
 

Views: 582

Comment

You need to be a member of First Coast Tea Party to add comments!

Join First Coast Tea Party

Comment by Ed Oertli on November 30, 2011 at 7:12pm

  Sections 1031 and 1032 are Direct Attacks on our Constitution / Bill of Rights. Rubio and team have it wrong. Anyone can be put on a list to be labeled a Terrorist and no reason/ justification has to be provided under this law. Kind of like the No Fly List where they do not have to say why a person was put on the list or how to get off--even children get listed. However, the consequences are much graver under these two sections of the Bill. Don't let them take away our Country's Basic Values as set-forth in the Constitution, our Liberties, and that American Exceptionalism that once glowed around the world. We do not want to become yet another 3rd world military dictatorship with no trials or due process. Call your Senators immediately and tell them to strike those sections 1031 and 1032 from the Bill. They have no legitimacy in America. This bill could be voted on as early as tomorrow. This attached document and video with Rand Paul put it all in proper context:     http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-aims-to-kill-indefinite-detention...

Another article that may help those understand who our government now considers Terrorist threats: http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/government/we-...[P11559932]&rrid=395005260

 

Comment by amanda choate on November 30, 2011 at 5:06pm

I just doubt that the government would need a legal means to act illegally.

Comment by Barry Lee Phillips on November 30, 2011 at 2:43pm

I was thinking in terms of a President who is a demagogue and would use any justification necessary to silence and/or detain political enemies.

Obama is definitely a demagogue.  It remains to be seen whether or not he would be tempted to use this kind of power to suppress his political enemies.  Checks and balances mean nothing to a demagogue.

Never in my 69 years have I had such thoughts about a sitting President.  And no I am not a conspiracy theorist or a delusional paranoid -- just a realist.

Comment by Angela Casey on November 30, 2011 at 2:14pm

It appears that senators Paul & Rubio do not agree on the intent (or repercussions) of the section in question. Perhaps Paul's amendment to strike section 1031 is a good move as the bill is indeed poorly written.

Comment by ACT Jacksonville on November 30, 2011 at 2:07pm

It is at least a check on balance of power.....

Comment by ACT Jacksonville on November 30, 2011 at 2:06pm

Lee... Covered that... what do you thin the National Guard is...but under juridiction of the Governor.

Comment by Barry Lee Phillips on November 30, 2011 at 2:04pm

To ACT Jacksonville,

The military on U.S. soil unconstitutional?  Not so fast! 

Read the Wikipedia article on the Posse Comitatus Act, the Insurrection Act of 1807 and changes included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. 

Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Section 1076:

The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

It is very clear to me that if a President wants to use a pretext based on the above language, that gives him legal authority now to deploy troops in the U.S.  Look how broadly this section is written -- "or other condition".  What does that mean?  It means anything that you want it to mean in order to justify deploying the military. 

By the time you stand up and shout this is unconstitutional you would be rounded up with the rest of the dissenters.

When you trade liberty for security this is what happens.

Comment by Mike Austell on November 30, 2011 at 1:36pm

Tea Party, let's face it.  We promoted and elected a big-government statist as our (so-called) Republican senator.  He can be trusted about as much as RINOs McCain and Lindsay Graham.   J.R. is just his little stool.  Here's another take on it.  Don't miss Rand Paul's speech on the floor.

http://www.infowars.com/senate-rejects-amendment-to-indefinite-dete...

Comment by Steve Tikas on November 30, 2011 at 1:34pm
If you read section 1032 were it is talking about US citizens it is very specific to say that it only applies to this section
"(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."
When you go to section 1031 they speak about the covered person in this section pending disposition under the law of war.  First off again they are speaking of each section differently and specifically.  This section also talks about a pending disposition.  That type of language sounds a lot like they are going to hold you until your trial under this section which does not specific that US citizens are not included.  Then you have the substantially supported them.  Very vague and open ended.  Who is going to decide what substantially supported means, that would be government which I don't trust to make the right discussions on many things and me being in jail is one of those things I don't trust them on.
(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.
I know that some might look at this and say I'm being too anal or whatever but I do know that the government can take almost anything and twist it to suit their needs and wants and to think they wouldn't do it in this case is naive.
I would also like to point out that this is coincidentally timed with the impending implosion of the European Union which is going to have grave consequences here at home and could further aggravate the recession/depression.  Many in this country are one big negative event away from rioting in the streets.
Comment by Roy McIntosh on November 30, 2011 at 12:44pm

better wake up America! Obama's regime is tightening the screws. Let's blast the Senate on this one!

National Debt Clock

  

The First CoastTea Party is a non-profit organization. We have no deep-pocketed special interest funding our efforts.

You may contact us at:

First Coast Tea Party
1205 Salt Creek Island Dr
Ponte Vedra, FL 32082
904-392-7475

Helpful Links

Blog Posts

RYAN NICHOLS - Hardened Criminal?? Seriously??

If you're not already aware. This is what's going on in DC while dangerous criminals are allowed back out on the streets.  It's horrifying that this is happening to our citizens and veterans for protesting the hijacking of our election process. This is still happening! They are STILL being tortured and treated like full on terrorists. 

You may not be aware of the typical things they're forced to go through...…

Continue

Posted by Babs Jordan on August 14, 2022 at 8:44am

© 2024   Created by LeadershipCouncil.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service