U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Halloween!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 11-30-2011, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Long Island, New York
15,712 posts, read 5,517,583 times
Reputation: 3470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
Holy Posse Commitatus! This has to be stopped dead in it's tracks! Red alert!!
did you read the actual bill....or just the conspiracy site stuff


Quote:
(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.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-30-2011, 09:56 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
30,963 posts, read 12,569,708 times
Reputation: 10898
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
Muddies the waters between military and civilian laws.
A mud is a mud by any other name. It is why Gitmo exists.

Quote:
No,I like the Constitution.
To someone who has but read only a couple of pages of this bill, would you mind explaining which specific aspects of the US constitution do you see this going against?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2011, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
4,422 posts, read 1,315,684 times
Reputation: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narcissus23 View Post
:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...12s1867pcs.pdf


A provision of S. 1867, or the National Defense Authorization Act bill, written by Senators John McCain and Carl Levin, declares American soil a battlefield and allows the President and all future Chief Executives to order the military to arrest and detain American citizens, innocent or not, without charge or trial. In other words, if this bill passes and the President signs it, OWS protesters or any American could end up arrested and indefinitely locked up by the military without the guaranteed right to due process or a speedy trial.....I think this is a tad to much power....What you think...................????????????????????:think :
Until overturned the courts have already ruled that the President has the power to detain American citizens, arrested in America without trial.

Josť Padilla (prisoner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On September 9, 2005, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit ruled that President Bush had the authority to detain Padilla without charges.[21] In an opinion written by judge J. Michael Luttig, Luttig cited the joint resolution by Congress authorizing military action following the September 11, 2001 attacks, as well as the June 2004 ruling concerning Yaser Hamdi.
...........
On January 3, 2006, the United States Supreme Court granted a Bush administration request to transfer Padilla from military to civilian custody.[26] Padilla was transferred to a federal prison in Miami from the Navy brig in Charleston while the Supreme Court decided whether to accept his appeal of the government's authority to keep citizens it designates "enemy combatants" in open-ended military confinement without benefit of trial.

On April 3, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, with three justices dissenting from denial of certiorari, to hear Padilla's appeal from the 4th Circuit Court's decision that the President had the power to designate him and detain him as an "enemy combatant" without charges and with disregard to habeas corpus.[30]
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2011, 10:02 AM
 
8,164 posts, read 9,495,448 times
Reputation: 5514
yet the people arguing on the floor in favor of it are specifically stating that it does pertain to US citizens...... either way it far from makes me comfortable
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2011, 11:40 AM
 
49 posts, read 65,551 times
Reputation: 20
The Udall amendment to remove the detainment of US citizens was voted down today, and the bill was passed by the Senate (I heard 88-1). Obama has said he will veto it. We'll see.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2011, 11:45 AM
 
8,164 posts, read 9,495,448 times
Reputation: 5514
I generally don't like it - but do need a little clarification, especially since it seems the people for this are very vocal about the need to have it apply to US Citizens on US soil

here is the actual verbiage and it's very long

Quote:
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.
So the President under the general Authorization for Use of Military Force can detail anyone that would fit subsection (b) pending disposition under the law of war -

Disposition is then defined as detention until the end of hostilities - which in this "war on terrorism" is essentially never, trial by military court, transfer for trial by another court or transfer to the custody/control of any foreign country or entity

so the military can detain while figuring out what to do with you as long as you were involved in 9/11 or the more broad definition in part b-2 ...... not necessarily comortable with how open ended "belligerent act" is

Quote:
(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).
President doesn't have expanded or limited powers and his power will transfer back to other laws

There is a requirement for those in b-2, but not b-1. So if you are tied to 9/11 then the secretary of defense doesn't need to brief congress. If you fall into the broader category the Secretary does.

This is the end of 1031

Quote:
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.
So 1031 affirms that the Armed Forces can be authorized to detain individuals

Then 1032 provides Requirements for Military Custody

The "course of hostilities" is vague considering the nature of this "war"

This section reaffirms some things - you can be detained by military law only if you are involved in 9/11 (authorized in 1031), al-Qaeda or or participated in any part of an actual or planned attack. It tightens up a little bit of the ambiguous language - but not particularly comfortable as there is an exception.

If the Secretary of Defense waives the narrowing of what a covered person is in the interest of national security - so again, if they determine that national security is at risk and put out a memo stating as much, then the more broad & ambiguous terms in 1031 will apply

Quote:
(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.
This seems to provide a safety net for American citizens and those that would fall under the jurisdiction of our constitution .... although it doesn't fit the debate and what is being said, even by supporters

Quote:
(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.
This will go into effect in 60 days - however, all those reference to a-1 & a-2 can be wiped out if the exception for national security is made as a-1 (and therefore a-2) will not apply.

If they do apply they basically need to appoint someone and build a process to see if someone fits the section. They don't have to detain someone who may fit the description if it would impact intelligence, you don't need to figure out what to do with them (detain, trial, transfer) until after interrogation - again open ended, if another country holds you and grants the US access it doesn't make you subject to this law, a person can be transfered from a third country if it is in the certified best interest of national security
that ends 1032

1033 deals with moving from Gitmo to other countries and is referenced in 1032 (a)(3) - which again can be excepted due to national security interests by the Secretary of Defense

Quote:
SEC. 1033. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.
(a) Certification Required Prior to Transfer-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2012 to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity unless the Secretary submits to Congress the certification described in subsection (b) not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual.
(2) EXCEPTION- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action taken by the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to effectuate--
(A) an order affecting the disposition of the individual that is issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United States having lawful jurisdiction (which the Secretary shall notify Congress of promptly after issuance); or
(B) a pre-trial agreement entered in a military commission case prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Certification- A certification described in this subsection is a written certification made by the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, that the government of the foreign country or the recognized leadership of the foreign entity to which the individual detained at Guantanamo is to be transferred--
(1) is not a designated state sponsor of terrorism or a designated foreign terrorist organization;
(2) maintains control over each detention facility in which the individual is to be detained if the individual is to be housed in a detention facility;
(3) is not, as of the date of the certification, facing a threat that is likely to substantially affect its ability to exercise control over the individual;
(4) has taken or agreed to take effective actions to ensure that the individual cannot take action to threaten the United States, its citizens, or its allies in the future;
(5) has taken or agreed to take such actions as the Secretary of Defense determines are necessary to ensure that the individual cannot engage or reengage in any terrorist activity; and
(6) has agreed to share with the United States any information that--
(A) is related to the individual or any associates of the individual; and
(B) could affect the security of the United States, its citizens, or its allies.
Hey, some talk of appropriations in an appropriations bill - yay!

So no money can be spent moving Gitmo detainees unless it fits an exception (I thought they were closing this place down - guess not......) - the exceptions are in part 2 (can transfer for a court order or prior pre-trail agreement) and subsection (d) which plainly reads "the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States." ...... i'm starting to really enjoy that catch all

Even when someone can transfer there are rules spelled out in the certification process. They can't transfer someone back to a terrorist state or organization, the foreign country has to maintain control over their facilties that will house the transfer, isn't under a threat that would upset their control, will take action to ensure the individual cannot threaten the US or any terrorist activity and will share with the US any information they obtain on that individual ......... so that wipes out most of the ME that would even be a potential zone for transfer.

Quote:
(c) Prohibition in Cases of Prior Confirmed Recidivism-
(1) PROHIBITION- Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity if there is a confirmed case of any individual who was detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, at any time after September 11, 2001, who was transferred to such foreign country or entity and subsequently engaged in any terrorist activity.
(2) EXCEPTION- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action taken by the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to effectuate--
(A) an order affecting the disposition of the individual that is issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United States having lawful jurisdiction (which the Secretary shall notify Congress of promptly after issuance); or

(B) a pre-trial agreement entered in a military commission case prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.
If an invidual was detained after 9/11 and has been found to have subsequently engaged in any terrorist activity it's off to Cuba unless you are off to trial

Quote:
(d) National Security Waiver-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Defense may waive the applicability to a detainee transfer of a certification requirement specified in paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b) or the prohibition in subsection (c) if the Secretary, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, determines that--
(A) alternative actions will be taken to address the underlying purpose of the requirement or requirements to be waived;
(B) in the case of a waiver of paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b), it is not possible to certify that the risks addressed in the paragraph to be waived have been completely eliminated, but the actions to be taken under subparagraph (A) will substantially mitigate such risks with regard to the individual to be transferred;
(C) in the case of a waiver of subsection (c), the Secretary has considered any confirmed case in which an individual who was transferred to the country subsequently engaged in terrorist activity, and the actions to be taken under subparagraph (A) will substantially mitigate the risk of recidivism with regard to the individual to be transferred; and
(D) the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States.
(2) REPORTS- Whenever the Secretary makes a determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress, not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual concerned, the following:
(A) A copy of the determination and the waiver concerned.
(B) A statement of the basis for the determination, including--
(i) an explanation why the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States; and
(ii) in the case of a waiver of paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b), an explanation why it is not possible to certify that the risks addressed in the paragraph to be waived have been completely eliminated.
(C) A summary of the alternative actions to be taken to address the underlying purpose of, and to mitigate the risks addressed in, the paragraph or subsection to be waived.
The Secretary can waive the requirement that money from the defense budget cannot be spent to transfer a detainee to a country that has agreed to take action that the individual will not threaten the US and will not participate in terrorist activity and waive the Prohibition of Recidivism if the Secretary deems that it's in the best interest of national security as long as those risks can be substantially mitigated
If this action is taken the Secretary must fill out a report

Quote:
(e) Definitions- In this section:
(1) The term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--
(A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Appropriations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Appropriations, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
(2) The term `individual detained at Guantanamo' means any individual located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of October 1, 2009, who--
(A) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and
(B) is--
(i) in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense; or
(ii) otherwise under detention at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
(3) The term `foreign terrorist organization' means any organization so designated by the Secretary of State under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189).

(f) Repeal of Superseded Authority- Section 1033 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4351) is repealed.
Some definitions

It is important to note the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act - this was a part that was pushed through despite outrage from Obama in a prior appropriations bill - he basically stated that although he did not like portions he couldn't hold up appropriations and he would work with congress to fix the parts that he didn't like (now that is change we can believe in........)

From what I can tell they are removing the fairly hard prohibition of transfers of detainees to foreign countries in the Ike Skelton bill with the complicated certification process above which provides very limited exceptions which is going to be full of confusion

Quote:
SEC. 1034. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT OR MODIFY FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES TO HOUSE DETAINEES TRANSFERRED FROM UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.
(a) In General- No amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2012 may be used to construct or modify any facility in the United States, its territories, or possessions to house any individual detained at Guantanamo for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense unless authorized by Congress.
(b) Exception- The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to any modification of facilities at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
(c) Individual Detained at Guantanamo Defined- In this section, the term `individual detained at Guantanamo' has the meaning given that term in section 1033(e)(2).
(d) Repeal of Superseded Authority- Section 1034 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4353) is amended by striking subsections (a), (b), and (c).
No money can be spent to modify facilities in US control to take on the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, however money can be spent to modify the Guantanamo Bay facilities (which as we all remember are definitely closing down, right?!)

So if you can't transfer them to a foreign country and you can't modify/create domestic facilities to house them - what can you do with them?
Well they can have their threat status (not the legality of their being held) reviewed in the next section

Quote:
SEC. 1035. PROCEDURES FOR PERIODIC DETENTION REVIEW OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.
(a) Procedures Required- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth procedures for implementing the periodic review process required by Executive Order No. 13567 for individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40).
(b) Covered Matters- The procedures submitted under subsection (a) shall, at a minimum--
(1) clarify that the purpose of the periodic review process is not to determine the legality of any detainee's law of war detention, but to make discretionary determinations whether or not a detainee represents a continuing threat to the security of the United States;
(2) clarify that the Secretary of Defense is responsible for any final decision to release or transfer an individual detained in military custody at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pursuant to the Executive Order referred to in subsection (a), and that in making such a final decision, the Secretary shall consider the recommendation of a periodic review board or review committee established pursuant to such Executive Order, but shall not be bound by any such recommendation; and
(3) ensure that appropriate consideration is given to factors addressing the need for continued detention of the detainee, including--
(A) the likelihood the detainee will resume terrorist activity if transferred or released;
(B) the likelihood the detainee will reestablish ties with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners if transferred or released;
(C) the likelihood of family, tribal, or government rehabilitation or support for the detainee if transferred or released;
(D) the likelihood the detainee may be subject to trial by military commission; and
(E) any law enforcement interest in the detainee.
(c) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined- In this section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
Is the individual a continuing threat - can they be transfered to a place that can keep them from rejoining terrorist groups? - is there any other law enforcement interest that we should hold them for?

Again - pretty vague - especially the other law enforcement interest part

Quote:
SEC. 1036. PROCEDURES FOR STATUS DETERMINATIONS.
(a) In General- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the procedures for determining the status of persons detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) for purposes of section 1031.

(b) Elements of Procedures- The procedures required by this section shall provide for the following in the case of any unprivileged enemy belligerent who will be held in long-term detention under the law of war pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force:
(1) A military judge shall preside at proceedings for the determination of status of an unprivileged enemy belligerent.
(2) An unprivileged enemy belligerent may, at the election of the belligerent, be represented by military counsel at proceedings for the determination of status of the belligerent.

(c) Report on Modification of Procedures- The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on any modification of the procedures submitted under this section. The report on any such modification shall be so submitted not later than 60 days before the date on which such modification goes into effect.

(d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined- In this section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
If you are detained under section 1031 there will be a process to determine your status with ruling by a military judge
Proponents say that allowing detainees to have their status reviewed by a military judge is a safety net against holding someone for no reason without completely restricting their ability to detain

I wish I had a definition of "unprivileged enemy belligerent"

the last section on detention follows

Quote:
SEC. 1037. CLARIFICATION OF RIGHT TO PLEAD GUILTY IN TRIAL OF CAPITAL OFFENSE BY MILITARY COMMISSION.
(a) Clarification of Right- Section 949m(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C), by inserting before the semicolon the following: `, or a guilty plea was accepted and not withdrawn prior to announcement of the sentence in accordance with section 949i(b) of this title'; and
(2) in subparagraph (D), by inserting `on the sentence' after `vote was taken'.

(b) Pre-trial Agreements- Section 949i of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

(c) Pre-trial Agreements- (1) A plea of guilty made by the accused that is accepted by a military judge under subsection (b) and not withdrawn prior to announcement of the sentence may form the basis for an agreement reducing the maximum sentence approved by the convening authority, including the reduction of a sentence of death to a lesser punishment, or that the case will be referred to a military commission under this chapter without seeking the penalty of death. Such an agreement may provide for terms and conditions in addition to a guilty plea by the accused in order to be effective.
`(2) A plea agreement under this subsection may not provide for a sentence of death imposed by a military judge alone. A sentence of death may only be imposed by the unanimous vote of all members of a military commission concurring in the sentence of death as provided in section 949m(b)(2)(D) of this title.'.
if you plead guilty before trial for a capital offense and don't withdraw it before your sentance, then you are less likely to be put to death - so confession incentive for some

death sentances can only be imposed by unanimous vote of all members of a military commission

===============
so now i'm probably a bit more confused on how this expands the war zone to US soil and will be applicable to US citizens .... how it will prevent US Citizens or anyone else from hiding under their status or merely being on US soil (as proponents argue)

I must be missing something given the nature of the debate - but i'm having a hard time seeing it in this section which is being referenced

Last edited by Finger Laker; 11-30-2011 at 11:58 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2011, 11:49 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
30,963 posts, read 12,569,708 times
Reputation: 10898
I get a feeling that Gitmo is at the core of this issue. The discomfort stemming from possible loopholes.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2011, 12:10 PM
 
8,164 posts, read 9,495,448 times
Reputation: 5514
It seems like a lot of it focuses on how to handle detainees at Guantanamo Bay

From what I can tell this is the authorization that is reaffirmed in the Bill above

Maybe there has been further case law that deals with these powers granted below that are being confirmed in bulk in 1031 of the Senate Bill

Quote:
Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001
Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
107th CONGRESS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2011, 12:47 PM
 
Location: Cherokee Nation
27,721 posts, read 10,551,642 times
Reputation: 6106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narcissus23 View Post
:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...12s1867pcs.pdf


A provision of S. 1867, or the National Defense Authorization Act bill, written by Senators John McCain and Carl Levin, declares American soil a battlefield and allows the President and all future Chief Executives to order the military to arrest and detain American citizens, innocent or not, without charge or trial. In other words, if this bill passes and the President signs it, OWS protesters or any American could end up arrested and indefinitely locked up by the military without the guaranteed right to due process or a speedy trial.....I think this is a tad to much power....What you think...................????????????????????:think :


I don't think Ron Paul will be voting Yea, on that one!

That is unconstitutional!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2011, 12:49 PM
 
8,101 posts, read 1,991,172 times
Reputation: 1578
Nanny State, here we come!
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top