Marshal Phil DeGrave SASS #55202 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Not sure I'm liking this, but before I load the magazines I'd like to hear from you. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 When I read: "The 2012 Defense Department Authorization bill that the Senate is working on this week contains a provision that would authorize the U.S. military to indefinitely detain, without charge or trial, anyone they consider to be engaged in hostilities against the United States. The provision would not restrict military detentions to people in specific countries or regions of the world and would apply to U.S. citizens living within the United States" ....so I say - NO I thought we have rights as US citizens! GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Smokepole #29248L Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 This will definitely be knocked down by the SCOTUS.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noz Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 I have bullets poured and cases clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tennessee Stud, SASS# 43634 Life Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 This will definitely be knocked down by the SCOTUS.... Yeah... but Sgt. Smoke Polecat.... I would NOT want to be the test-case. U.S. vs Stud.... ts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Okie Sawbones, SASS #77381 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Posse Comitatus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker, SASS #55963 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 We might have had rights but what about the patriot act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Balz, SASS#46599 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Sounds to me like they worried about us boys out in "fly over country" that don't much care for what they are doing to our country. This is the kind of thing that happens in dictator run 3rd world countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Just channeling for Honest Abe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 I need to do some research on this before I run up the skull and crossbones. I'm getting too old to get my BP up unnecessarily. I'll do some digging and call my congressman in the morning. I see lots of blogging about it but few official references. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Smokepole #29248L Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Yeah... but Sgt. Smoke Polecat.... I would NOT want to be the test-case. U.S. vs Stud.... ts Me either, Brother..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S. Quentin Quale, Esq. SASS 9953 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 The provisions are "inartfully drafted" but make constant reference to the Law of War. Those principles will limit the language proposed. Under current law, as I understand it, if you are a "combatant" then you are subject to detention, if captured, until the end of hostilities. You may have a right to challenge the determination of "combatant" but that would be about all. If you are charged with a violation of the Laws of War then that would be a separate matter. There is well established precident to deal with such charges. Under traditional law an American citizen bearing arms against the U.S. would have been charged with Treason.* That, however, presumed a legal state of "war" existed between the U.S. and some sovereign and the Citizen was actively engaged in the service of that sovereign. Since the enemy we now face has no "flag" there can be no "war" as it was envisioned under the Constitution. This has created a very difficult "grey zone" where there appears to be little applicable law. IMO it's time to rethink the definition of "war." The last "war" was WWII. Since 1945 we've engaged in major combat on at least a half dozen occasions. We have sustained, and caused, hundreds of thousands (perhaps even millions) of casualties. We are, even now, deploying very large formations of troops to foreign nations. We are sending armed incusions into countries with which we have normal diplomatic relations. If law should follow experience then we should acknowledge that a state of "war" may exist between the U.S. and non-sovereign entities. This can lead to some very messy situations and Congress needs to be part of the solution in drafting appropriate legislation to make such a definition and impliment it. In no way should we allow this to become some sort of Executive fiat. This is an area where some serious thinking needs to be applied. SQQ *"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." U.S. Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sloe Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I would think that they're trying to close a loophole so that the military has authority over "home grown" terrorists. In this way you wouldn't have the Justice Dept wanting to hold trials in New York City. Just my two cents. Barry Sloe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Longshot, SASS #44254 Life Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 From an AP news story about the military appropriations bill passed by the Senate: "The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., had sought an exception to the provision for U.S. citizens, but her effort failed, 55-45." http://news.yahoo.com/senate-approves-662-billion-defense-bill-012555722.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Windshadow Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 From an AP news story about the military appropriations bill passed by the Senate: "The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., had sought an exception to the provision for U.S. citizens, but her effort failed, 55-45." http://news.yahoo.com/senate-approves-662-billion-defense-bill-012555722.html Check out this article on Wired.com. Senate Wants the Military to Lock You Up Without Trial http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/senate-military-detention/ he quotes from this http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/does-the-ndaa-authorize-detention-of-us-citizens/ which I find more worrying than the news reports as the author seems to know what he is talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Duncan Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 This has already been done! Your "honest" Abe ordered the military to "arrest" the legal elected Legislators of the State of Maryland! War of Northern aggression And US citizens of Aisian decent were taken from their homes and put in "relocation" camps during WW II Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 The Posse Commitatus Act does have "loopholes." (Where's Mr LaRue~?) However...! Unless I'm missin' sumpin' this is addressed in the last sentence: 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©, 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Reb, SASS #54804 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 On FOX news this morn they wrer saying that 1 of the provisons of this is that the Pres. can declare that someone is no longer a citizen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.