S. 1867: National Defense Authorization Act?

[changed]

Everyone recently voted for this bill:
GovTrack: Senate Vote On Passage: S. 1867: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

Senate Vote On Passage: S. 1867: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

someone on fb said this defense act includes a provision for the military to seize and detain US citizens in a military prison for an indefinite period without access to a lawyer or a trial if they are suspected of being a terrorist. In other words, we no longer have the legal right to due process according to this provision. Every senator who voted for this act voted against our Bill of Rights.

Can someone clear this up for me? is it really as bad as people are saying?
Thanks!

view bill: S. 1867: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (GovTrack.us)
view amendments: S. 1867 - Amendments: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (GovTrack.us)

(62) S.Amdt. 1126 by Sen. Feinstein [D-CA]
To limit the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031.
Proposed: Nov 17, 2011. Rejected: Dec 1, 2011.
Dec 1, 2011. Amendment SA 1126 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 45 - 55. Record Vote Number: 214. [View Details]

GovTrack: S.Amdt. 1126: To limit the authority of the Armed Forces to... to S. 1867: National Defense Authorization Act for... (Vote On Amendment)
??? title looks like it is limiting authority? but the Sponsor: Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]??

recently there was this: American Terrorist Killed in Yemen | The Lonely Conservative
American killed by Americans without due process... ??? I wish they would post the text of the amendment...

[annewandering]

Yes. It can be used against anyone. It excludes american citizens but if they are off in quantonimo bay how are they going to even prove they are citizens? It would be 'Gee we are so sorry! We didnt see any evidence you were a citizen!" IF you even had a chance to prove anything.

[talisyn]

I was wrong, mom, the amendment that would exempt American citizens was not allowed into the bill passed by the Senate. So if this passes and you find yourself holding a sign protesting an action by our elected representatives don't be surprised if you get asked some very interesting questions *^.^*

[annewandering]

so what excuse, I wonder, did they use to not exclude US citizens. Or do they think it just doesnt matter. I am hearing it is running into trouble in the house.

[RescueMom]

Just all part of the Patriot Act...dress giving up freedoms in an American Flag and call any one who opposes it Anti-American.

Brings to mind the Ben Franklin saying Those who would give up Liberty for Security will have neither...paraphrasing it there but that's the idea.

For a nation that claims to be 'Christian' we sure seem to be fearful of everything...and that is what this bill is based in fear, pure and simple. The terrorists are everywhere and gonna get us so we impose laws that do nothing but make our own people prisoners.

Fear will take a God Filled soul and turn it into devils and dust. - Bruce S.

[anatess]

This is the full text of the Senate Bill Section 1031:

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 aappropriate 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.

(f) 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).

Letter (a) is the issue being contested. But please note that letter (a) is tempered by letter (b) and letter (f) gives it oversight. The detention coverage only applies to enemy combatants on the war of 9/11. Just because you burnt an American flag does not make you an enemy combatant. You have to have been suspected of aiding Al-Quaeda or be actively involved in the 9/11 attacks. Basically, you must have been suspected of being an enemy combatant in what was knows as the War Against Terror. And no, the Dixie Chicks are not considered enemy combatants regardless of what they said in that European concert tour.

The reason why US citizens is not exempt from section 1031 is because, for the first time in history, the War is not between nations. It's not Germany versus Great Britain or USA versus Japan or Iran versus Iraq anymore. The current war against the US has no precedent - it comes from multi-national cels, some of which are deeply rooted in the United States.

If you put enemy combatants in civilian court, you have a very limited time for the military to interrogate and produce substantial evidence to extend detention before the combatant has to be let out. A military strategy is not going to work in that set-up. Or, we have not come up with a military strategy against enemy combatants that will work under civilian court.

When a war infiltrates a nation's borders, the normal proceeding would be to declare Martial Law and suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution.

Personally, I would rather have Section 1031 than Martial Law. I grew up under Martial Law in the Philippines and it is not fun. It was a "wag the dog" kind of war where the islamic terrorists were supported by the administration just for the purpose of instilling enough fear in Congress to declare Martial Law. And we ended up with President Marcos, the dictator. It took us 25 years to fight it.

The 9/11 threat is not a made-up one. It is a real war the US is fighting. Section 1031, in my opinion is not giving up liberty. Suspension of habeas corpus is giving up liberty. Section 1031 is giving our military a fighting chance at winning this new-age war.

But, what do I know? I'm not American.

[anatess]

Originally Posted by RescueMom

Just all part of the Patriot Act...dress giving up freedoms in an American Flag and call any one who opposes it Anti-American.

Brings to mind the Ben Franklin saying Those who would give up Liberty for Security will have neither...paraphrasing it there but that's the idea.

For a nation that claims to be 'Christian' we sure seem to be fearful of everything...and that is what this bill is based in fear, pure and simple. The terrorists are everywhere and gonna get us so we impose laws that do nothing but make our own people prisoners.

Fear will take a God Filled soul and turn it into devils and dust. - Bruce S.

This is true as far as airline security is concerned. Having somebody touch your crotch to check for weapons just because you want to ride an airplane is exchanging dignity for security based on fear.

I think it's a stretch to apply it to Section 1031.

[annewandering]

I fear any law that allows a person to be imprisoned, without access to a lawyer, detained for an indeterminate length of time and, possibly moved out of country so they can ignore the laws of the country regarding torture.
If they are wrongfully detained how do they get redress? How does anyone even know what happened to them? What is the criteria for determining they are in alligence with a terrorist organisation? I know a serial killer. What if he was actually a supporter of Al Quida? Could they arrest me and I would never been seen again? Under this law they could.
We gritted our teeth and allowed the so called Patriot Act. As time goes by I am afraid we will live to regret that. Too much power in the hands of anonymous people is not a good thing. Transparency is all that keeps us going, I swear.
It is a huge mistake to allow this potential freedom killer loose on our citizens.

[anatess]

Originally Posted by annewandering

I fear any law that allows a person to be imprisoned, without access to a lawyer, detained for an indeterminate length of time and, possibly moved out of country so they can ignore the laws of the country regarding torture.
If they are wrongfully detained how do they get redress? How does anyone even know what happened to them? What is the criteria for determining they are in alligence with a terrorist organisation? I know a serial killer. What if he was actually a supporter of Al Quida? Could they arrest me and I would never been seen again? Under this law they could.
We gritted our teeth and allowed the so called Patriot Act. As time goes by I am afraid we will live to regret that. Too much power in the hands of anonymous people is not a good thing. Transparency is all that keeps us going, I swear.
It is a huge mistake to allow this potential freedom killer loose on our citizens.

Anne, you have to remember that this law only applies to enemy combatants. Enemy combatants are under the US Military Code.

Are you saying, therefore, that we don't care if our US Military wrongfully imprison, detain, and torture anybody as long as they're not American Citizens?

All your questions should be addressed to the US Military Code of Conduct and the Rules of Engagement or whatever law the US Military follows on war procedures. Not Section 1031 of this particular law. If you don't trust your US Military then you have a much bigger problem on your hands.

If letter (f) on Section 1031 was not written, I would agree with you on the Military having too much power. Letter (f) still puts the Military under civilian rule.

[annewandering]

Who is an enemy combatant? In who's eyes?
Actually the framers of the Constitution did not trust military which is why we have the right to bear arms. They did not trust any branch of the government either which is why we have three branches of government to act as checks and balances.
Do we care what is done with military combatants? I havent noticed a lot of concern over it. Have you?