General Categories > Laws and Legislation

S. 1867-National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 how much does anyone know?

<< < (2/6) > >>

bkoenig:
Both voted for it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00218

LM4202:
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) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

This is for the terrorists being held in Gitmo.  Where the hell is all these lies and fear mongering coming from?  Why don't people actually read the damn bill instead of passing off as fact, what someone else says?  Can't people read anymore and make up their own minds?

They need that in the bill for funding the Gitmo detention center.  Or should we just free all those Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists?

DanClrk51:
But this does apply to US Citizens abroad doesn't it? I do not like the precedent being set here this bill is bad. If a US Citizen is caught in acts of terrorism they still have a right to due process. Indefinite detention is bull**** regardless of who is being detained US Citizen or not! If the govt wants to lock someone up then they need to provide evidence and there needs to be checks and balances just as there always have been. Why do we need any more laws at this point in time?!! All of this is designed to creep closer and closer. It may be US Citizens and foreigners suspected of terrorism today but tomorrow they'll make a new argument that US Citizens should be detained indefinitely if suspected of terrorism.

ScottC:
If the 'terrorist' doen't belong to any military and is actively working/plotting against the US I think they've given up their "rights."  (I'm not sure where under the US Constitution foreigners have "rights" to begin with - seems the Constitution is written to protect the US citizens, not everyone else.)  And they certainly forfeted them if they are here illegally.

I understand it's a fine line, but currently the US seems to bend over backwards to protect everyone but it's own citizens.  And when they do try to protect the US, everyone screams foul.

Instead of calling them a 'terrorist' (which holds a military reference which doesn't actually exist) we should just call them the murdering psycho-criminal skumbag trash they are.

Yea, I know: ask me how I really feel...

rluening:
ScottC - the Bill of Rights doesn't actually apply to people - citizen or non citizen. It doesn't lay out which rights people "have", it just enumerates a list of rights that all humans have and on which the federal government will not infringe.

/rl

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page