http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-s...erican-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being
Wow... boggles the mind.
Wow... boggles the mind.
The Senate is going to vote(this monday or tuesday) on whether Congress will give this presidentand every future president the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last nights Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.
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.
Even if it doesn't extend to citizens, it's shameless pandering to fear, and rejection of 200 years of jurisprudence. Other than in matters of immigration & voting, non-citizens enjoy the same rights under the constitution as the rest of us and have all along.
By who? I am guessing not a jury.You would think the ACLU would have actually linked to the real bill. It is not hard to do, here it is:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:s.1867:
There is no way this bill could have been drafted in secret. It is HUGE!!!!!
Here are the relevant portions:
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.
Since that was the initial claim, we can call it debunked and move on from there.
By who? I am guessing not a jury.
Requirement to detain may not extend, but that doesn't mean that prohibition from detaining extends.
I'm not sure it's been debunked at all, and the notion that we should treat foreigners who are in this country legally any different than we treat each other is offensive, and blatantly unconstitutional wrt the 5th & 6th amendments.
Sorry, I stopped there because that was the item under question. The very next item listed is:
(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.
So we treat them the same, except where the Constitution says we can treat them differently. I have no problem with that. The Constitution was never designed to protect non-citizen residents who are outside the United States.
Current interpretation of the Constitution treats all aliens the same as citizens wrt criminal prosecution, not just resident aliens...
See if you can find your way around the wording of the 5th & 6th amendments, OK? Or are we declaring permanent martial law?
If you are here illegally, then I do not care about your "rights". Want rights, come here legally.
We simply follow the Constitution, just like the Military Appropriations bill says to do.
Let me repost it:
(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.
That says you ignore the requirement to detain the lawful resident except where the Constitution says you can. If you claim it does not say you can (I assume you are correct in this), then you cannot at all. It is pretty clear. It simply seperates citizen from lawful alien since the two are not the same thing...the Constitution treats the two differently in many ways.
So nothing to see here. The bill protects lawful aliens to the extent required by the Constitution. I would say that is a good thing.
If you are here illegally, then I do not care about your "rights". Want rights, come here legally.
Luckily for the rest of the world, we don't care about (or do, thank god) what you want. We follow the law.
The Constitution doesn't make a distinction between illegal and legal aliens. It applies to all people in the US.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#immigrationImmigration
The Constitution never uses the word immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas for countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place
You would think a "sage" as yourself would know this. So sorry to burst your bubble, you probably got all excited you could start waterboarding illegal aliens or something.
Current interpretation of the Constitution treats all aliens the same as citizens wrt criminal prosecution, not just resident aliens...
See if you can find your way around the wording of the 5th & 6th amendments, OK? Or are we declaring permanent martial law?
Did you read section 1031? My reading of the statute is that 1031 authorizes the POTUS to detain people connected to AQ or the Taliban (members or people who aid them) without trial. There are no exceptions for US citizens or resident aliens, and no distinction is made between inside and outside the US.
Section 1032, which you have quoted, is talking about something related but different: the *requirement* of military custody for suspected terrorists or those with terrorist links. So where it excludes citizens and legal resident aliens, it is excluding them from the "requirement" of military custody. Nonetheless, section 1031 *authorizes* such custody for anyone, citizen or not.
That is my reading of the statute. Frankly I'd rather be wrong on this one because the statute strikes me as blatantly unconstitutional. Anyone with a different interpretation of it, feel free to chime in.
- wolf
Just reading this would seem to do exactly what the ACLU is worried about. The use of "may" in section c gives them an out, though the status of citizen should be explicitly listed and placed into the proper category. Detaining people for the length of the hostilities is nothing new...but the nature of hostitilites have changed. We now use "war on terror" (both Bush and Obama use it, so it is not a republican or democrat thing) as the hostility...and that can last forever. It is not like a war with Germany, which has a definate end.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).
Everyone who is accused of a crime is placed in handcuffs and put into jail prior to their trial. It is the way it works. The claim of innocent until proven guilty is not based in reality. In reality, you are locked up until you are allowed to show you are not guilty.