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 Kate Svagdis on November 30, 2011 at 11:24am

If we followed the Constitution, profiled as advised by the Israelis, protected and secured our borders from illegals of all nations, and prosecuted for treason anyone aiding and abetting the enemy we wouldn't need new and additional laws.There is no excuse for federal agencies funded by tax payers to not work together. The DOJ causes most  of the problems, especially this DOJ and administration.

Comment by Ernest Lephart on November 30, 2011 at 9:42am

This is my opinion after talking to J. R. who work for Senator Rubio as some sort of go between for Rubio and the Florida Tea Parties. After a long conversation that started around 7pm we could agree to disagree that this S-1687 had merit. I feel that we have more than enough law enforcement agencies and personnel. The problem is that they are envious of one another and compete with each other for funds and jurisdiction therefor they do not cooperate smoothly. So what is needed is a more streamlined approach with more cooperation with each other. We are suffering from runaway government right now with out a doubt. This makes the populace nervous when they want to break the Constitution by passing more laws that are unconstitutional.  Like many other problems we suffer from the government is broken and needs to be fixed. Government is broken at it's foundation when the government officials do not follow the Constitution. I see this like a car that will not run properly the broken part needs to be replaced. The automobile will not run better if you change the windshield wipers or adding sun shades. The justice system is overwhelmed with petty crime and murderers alike so instead of realizing that we need to treat violent crime and non violent crime different we just keep putting so many people in jail that there is no room for more violent criminals. So the states are letting prisoners go free. This is not fixing the problem this is just a band aid. We don't need more laws we need smarter enforcement and a policy that separates the violent criminal from the non violent.

Comment by ACT Jacksonville on November 30, 2011 at 9:40am

Darla,  Agree... the military for us on US soil is unconsititutional for a reason and so the second Amendment was established for a reason.  To keep the Governement in fear of the people and avoid tyranny.

 

Comment by Darla Duffey on November 30, 2011 at 9:24am

The "Judge" on FOX,  Napolitano, ranted and raved last night against this amendment for constitutional reasons! 

 

Comment by ACT Jacksonville on November 30, 2011 at 9:17am

Angela,

Your Second Link.... mentions the same concerns I stated below.

Senate Bill 1867, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012  page 362 (emphasis added)

(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.
15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 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.

So, according to the letter of the law and the language of it, this does not apply to US citizens.That is an important distinction yet it is still not altogether reassuring since it may only be a matter of time before that language is struck from the bill or future legislation amends it to include US citizens

 

IT IS DANGEROUS LEGISLATION.

Comment by Angela Casey on November 30, 2011 at 8:55am
Comment by ACT Jacksonville on November 30, 2011 at 8:45am

(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.

 

This paragraph negates this requirement about holding U.S. citizens.  

 

We already have a local, state, and federal police force.  We have a National Guard under the STATES control/Governor to handle any additional forces needed in the war on Terror or other acts.   It is redundant, expensive, and dangerous.

 

We have Military working on JTTF or Joint Terrorism Task Forces....now.  It is covered.

 

This administration has proven they have NO Problem defying Constitutional law and abuse their office and power.  I do not believe we need to give additonal power to weild the Military within our borders.  This is a trojan horse which will eventually be tweaked and used against Americans should they need to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

 

Words have meanings.... Joesph Pfifer wrote a small little booklet "abuse of language, Abuse of Power".... we have already seen the term ENEMY changed to Violent Extremist in our Federal Government Lexicon... this would classify our founders as those our law enforcement would be pitted against...as they would qualify.   they would no qualify as the enemy of America.     

TEA Party exercising 2nd Amendment... would they fit as an Enemy?   I think not.

TEA Party exercising 2nd Amendment....would they fit as an violent extremist?   very easily

words and legislation with little tweaks .... will undermine the constitution and set up the federal government to use the Military against us.   WAKE UP.     We have the security needed.... this is not just about detaining enemy combatants.   Bill is not written well in my opinion.

Comment by Anne Matthews on November 30, 2011 at 8:19am

Regarding the Obama administration comment, it was reported that O would veto this if the most "offensive" of the language was not amended.  Fact-checking needed here.

Sen. Rubio cites the ACLU as the culprit in misrepresenting the facts but other sources are saying the same thing about this bill.

Comment by Paul D on November 30, 2011 at 7:15am

I see this as a small step at a power grab. Look at it this way. You have all heard the saying about cooking a frog. If you put the frog in a pot of hot water it will immediately jump out but if you put the frog in a pot of cool water and slowly turn up the heat, the frog will not notice the change and will be cooked alive. That is obama and his administrations agenda. "Change you can count on" however bad it is.

Comment by Barry Lee Phillips on November 30, 2011 at 6:44am

I have a problem with part of the language in 1031:

"(2) . . . including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

If a federal prosecutor decides that a U.S. citizen has committed a belligerent act to aid enemy (terrorist) forces, then what is to prevent the prosecutor from indicting that U.S. citizen under this Act?

One could interpret a "belligerent act" to include excessive verbal belligerence to the extent that the 1st Amendent may not apply in cases involving alleged terrorism.

1032 states that U.S. citizens cannot be detained by the military.  There is nothing in the Act preventing detention by federal authorities for a "belligerent act". 

I don't think Rubio's office is looking at this closely enough.  I would like to see "belligerent acts" specifically defined in the Act.

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