Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens

[Mr. Invisible]

Link can be found here (Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a)

Here is an excerpt:

While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.​

And:

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and 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 night’s 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.
​

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

​

​

(emphasis added)​

While I understand that a lot of you are not fans of the ACLU, I think that no matter what side you are on this is extremely important as it would affect the nation as a whole. All this allows for is an even larger infringement on your personal liberties that are already under attack. While it may seem far-fetched, we must remember that the Patriot Act also seemed like an amazing idea, but that had several provisions in it that allowed for our civil liberties to be curbed.

​

 

[MaggieD]

Link can be found here (Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a)

Here is an excerpt:

While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.​

And:

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and 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 night’s 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.
​

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

​

​

(emphasis added)​

While I understand that a lot of you are not fans of the ACLU, I think that no matter what side you are on this is extremely important as it would affect the nation as a whole. All this allows for is an even larger infringement on your personal liberties that are already under attack. While it may seem far-fetched, we must remember that the Patriot Act also seemed like an amazing idea, but that had several provisions in it that allowed for our civil liberties to be curbed.

​

I think this would require an Amendment to the Constitution. It's scarey, though. Not a chance, I'd say.

A writ of habeas corpus, also known as the Great Writ, is a summons with the force of a court order; it is addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example) and demands that a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person

 

[a351]

Figures the only bill with bi-partisan support is one that would completely void the constitution and private citizens rights.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

I think this would require an Amendment to the Constitution. It's scarey, though. Not a chance, I'd say.

I understand where you are coming from Maggie, but for all intents and purposes the Constitution is now just a document that people pay lip service to. Parts of the Patriot Act have been ruled unconstitutional (Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional (washingtonpost.com)) (US Constitution vs. The Patriot Act) and yet earlier this year the Senate renewed the Patriot Act (Senate Moves Patriot Act Toward Extension | Fox News). In addition to this, the invasion of Libya was unconstitutional (Obama's Unconstitutional War - By Bruce Ackerman | Foreign Policy), yet Congress still allowed it to occur. Finally, the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki was unconstitutional (An unconstitutional killing: Obama's killing of Awlaki violates American principles - New York Daily News), yet that was given much fanfare by the mainstream media and was argued as a major blow to AQ. Due to all of these actions, the Constitution is effectively losing its power and becoming nothing more than an ordinary document rather than the highest law of the land.

 

[apdst]

I think this would require an Amendment to the Constitution. It's scarey, though. Not a chance, I'd say.

Plus, it would be a violation of Posse Comotatus.

 

[Risky Thicket]

All y'all get on the phone tomorrow and/or send an email today to your senators to tell them you do not support this senate bill. My senator's are McCain and Kyl. No matter, I'm calling their offices anyway. Washington has lost its goddam mind and its time we let them know it. Vote the bastards out!

 

[Aunt Spiker]

[edit: S. 1867 is the bill in question]


Here at Thomas: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:s.1867:

Well - after carefully reading the following two sections that they brought into question - I've highlighted in bold the two provisions that actually protects US citizens and legal residents from this military action. . . .so the ACLU is over-reading and going too deep and, in turn - seems to be protecting terrorists.

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).

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.

(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.

(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.

 

[StillBallin75]

So - if this is what the bills says then why is the name of the actual bill and amendments proposed to existing measures not directly named in the article or linked to?

Are we suppose to take this for face value because it was blogged about on the ACLU website?

National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 is the name of the bill.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 is the name of the bill.

Yeah - I noticed that after I posted . . . sections 1031 and 1032 of S. 1867

 

[MaggieD]

Plus, it would be a violation of Posse Comotatus.

That's what I first thought of -- 'til I looked it up to be sure...

Posse Comitatus isn't a Constitutional doctrine. It's a piece of legislation. And that legislation has been continuously circumvented over the years -- the war on drugs, immigration enforcement, civil rights enforcement in the '60's, the 1996 Olympics, and now, it would appear, the war on terror.

Habeus corpus. Our last stand. This is terrible legislation. Just terrible. I sure hope it doesn't stand a snowball's chance...

The Myth of Posse Comitatus

 

[Aunt Spiker]

That's what I first thought of -- 'til I looked it up to be sure...

Posse Comitatus isn't a Constitutional doctrine. It's a piece of legislation. And that legislation has been continuously circumvented over the years -- the war on drugs, immigration enforcement, civil rights enforcement in the '60's, the 1996 Olympics, and now, it would appear, the war on terror.

Habeus corpus. Our land stand. This is terrible legislation. Just terrible. I sure hope it doesn't stand a snowball's chance...

The Myth of Posse Comitatus

ACLU's over-reacting . . . within the two provisions they have an issue with - it clearly states who and who doesn't qualify for such activity . . . you have to be a terrorist, have ties to Al-Qaeda and other such organizations (etc).

 

[Paschendale]

Actually, Spiker, those bolded passages could easily be interpreted to mean that some group other than the military can be substituted for holding American citizens without trial. In fact, it could also be taken to mean that requirements in section (a) need not be met in order for the actions in 1031. It literally says that the requirement need not be met for the case of American citizens. The ACLU is exactly right about this. Under this bill, it is actually easier to abduct and hold an American citizen without trial than it is a captured Al Qaeda soldier.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Actually, Spiker, those bolded passages could easily be interpreted to mean that some group other than the military can be substituted for holding American citizens without trial. In fact, it could also be taken to mean that requirements in section (a) need not be met in order for the actions in 1031. It literally says that the requirement need not be met for the case of American citizens. The ACLU is exactly right about this. Under this bill, it is actually easier to abduct and hold an American citizen without trial than it is a captured Al Qaeda soldier.

If that's hte argument against it the ACLU isn't stating that . . . if you were ti sign and send an e-petition it would read thus:

If enacted, sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA would:

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

The Administration's opposition does make more sense since it's not emotional and misleading: they cite that it would strain the military forces and guide them to patrol the streets which is already done by others in regard to these matters - but their opposition reason and the reason of the ACLU does not mirror each other.

Here are Udall's proposed alteration and Amendments to bill S 1867
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/~r112coxAI9:e141101:

What they want to do is add this to the end of section 1031:

(f) Extension to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens.--The authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under this section extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States, except to the extent prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.

When re-reading section 1031 it just seems as if it should have been in already - since similar wording is in the following section of 1032.

 

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

(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 is from the text of the bill.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

This is from the text of the bill.

I edited onto post #13 regarding what Udall is wanting to amend to section 1031.

The section I quoted was in S 1032 - and thus . . . I dont' follow the concern that the ACLU has with that section but I see the issue in 1031.

 

[samsmart]

Plus, it would be a violation of Posse Comotatus.

But Posse Comitatus is a federal law, not a part of the Constitution, so all it would take to dissolve Posse Comitatus is another federal law repealing it.

 

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

I edited onto post #13 regarding what Udall is wanting to amend to section 1031.

The section I quoted was in S 1032 - and thus . . . I dont' follow the concern that the ACLU has with that section but I see the issue in 1031.

I stand corrected. Thanks for catching that fumble, Aunt Spiker.

 

[Risky Thicket]

About 4 years ago I ran into a friend of mine. I had not seen her in a while. We live in the neighboring small towns. It's important that I provide a little background. She is a Ph.D. type person who is internationally recognized in her field. She travels all over the world constantly. Her husband is very involved in politics and has, doesn't now, held state offices. They are "good people', unpretentious, good neighbors, well liked by everyone. Good parents. Much like most of the people you know and trust in your own neighborhood.

We ended up having lunch to catch up. She then told me a story that she had been afraid to tell anyone for over 8 months. Her son was away at college. This son is apolitical. He had long believed that politics were futile and was turn off by it from watching his dad's involvement in it. Away at school, he'd gone to the bookstore on campus, walked outside and saw a gathering protest. Curious, as most of us would be, he stood there to watch the protest. Minutes after he was swept into a cordon by police, as were all the people standing in front of the bookstore. He was arrested and taken to jail along with everyone else.

My friend said her son was held for about 6 hours. He was questioned and then released. He called his family that night and told them what had happened. Much relieved they told him, as all parents would, to avoid crowds and protests in the future.

That summer he went out of town to spend a few weeks with his grandmother. She needed some work done on her house. He was good with those kinds of things and he had the summer off. One day while he was out running errands two suited men came to the grandmother's house. They showed badges and said they had a warrant for his arrest. Grandmother was of course in shock. He's a good kid, really good kid. It was a surprise to the grandmother. She cooperated and said that he had a number of places to go and that she didn't know exactly where he was. They waited and then left. She called his parents back here in Arizona.

The parents, my friends, eventually reached him on his cell. Everyone was panicked. The son had no idea what was going on. How did they even know where he was? Parents contacted a lawyer. Lawyer advised that son should turn himself into the local sheriff. He did. He was later arrested on suspicion of subversive activity. Federal stuff. Bail, attorney fees and court. He was informed that he would not contact anyone he was with when he was arrested at the protest. He didn't know anyone at the protest until they were hauled in en masse.

Back at school, on bond, he saw two people who were arrested at the time he was arrested during the protest. Everyone was scared ****less. They too have been arrested by the feds. They were all afraid of saying anything to each other or being seen together. That was as far as it went.

Much later and legal fees untold his case was dismissed. He has no idea how the others faired. His family remains shocked and weary. My friend is convinced her phone was and is taped. Her husband dropped out of politics. The son moved back home and finished college locally. The family is reluctant to do anything. My friend continues to fly out of the country and hasn't had any problems, but now either she or her husband remains in town, always. They will not travel out of town unless both kids go with them.

The feds told them and the son that the must not talk to anyone about what happened.

How often has this happened in America?

 

[1Perry]

ACLU's over-reacting . . . within the two provisions they have an issue with - it clearly states who and who doesn't qualify for such activity . . . you have to be a terrorist, have ties to Al-Qaeda and other such organizations (etc).

How would this have been different than a past Congress singling out members of the Mafia?

 

[1Perry]

I was going to wait and cross reference but I wonder how many will have a problem with this but had no problem with Obama targeting and dropping a bomb on the head of an American citizen?

The reason I didn't is because I know all I would get is "that's different".

I'm not suprised to see the scum bag McCain involved here. I'm not too worried. Much like his last attempt at dissmissing constitutional rights with McCain/Feingold, the courts will toss this also. Some people never learn.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I was going to wait and cross reference but I wonder how many will have a problem with this but had no problem with Obama targeting and dropping a bomb on the head of an American citizen?

The reason I didn't is because I know all I would get is "that's different".

I'm not suprised to see the scum bag McCain involved here. I'm not too worried. Much like his last attempt at dissmissing constitutional rights with McCain/Feingold, the courts will toss this also. Some people never learn.

Did you read the bill? Just how bad is it? The only thing I saw was the oversight in S 1031 - I really don't think a Democrat and a Republican got together and are trying to gang up on citizens :shrug:

If the proposed Udall amendment was added onto it wouldnt' that just fix the entire issue and we'd never hear the end of it?

Well - for some, yes. . . but the loudest? No. . .. after reading many articles it seems as if people formed an opinion, first - and then scanned through the legislation and found a flaw and then had a tizzy.

Unlike Udall - who saw the flaw and said "well - we can address that . . . . here we go"

What about the other amendments ot the bill? Anyone oppose al lthat other stuff or is everyone just eyeballing this one issue?

 

[1Perry]

Did you read the bill? Just how bad is it? The only thing I saw was the oversight in S 1031 - I really don't think a Democrat and a Republican got together and are trying to gang up on citizens :shrug:

Where do I start.......? First off, that's pretty much what was said about McCain/Feingold. Let's start with a Levin statement just to note how stupid these politicians are.

“If there’s an al-Qaida guy here attacking the military base. Some guy walks up to a military base and blows himself up ... can that person be detained by the military at that fort?” Levin told reporters.

I'm thinking that if he blew himself up that there isn't going to be anything to detain. :shrug:

Now that we have that out of the way.......Nah, let's go to another statement that shows what a bunch of losers we have running things.

Attorney General Eric Holder said last week that the United States must have the flexibility to prosecute terror suspects in criminal courts.

Holder has been saying this for years and he doesn't have the balls to even attempt a civilian trial. Why argue for something you aren't even going to pursue?

Senate panel pushes ahead with defense bill over White House objections on terror suspect plan - The Washington Post

Now the real problem is that the Constitution gives American citizens certain protections from the government and one of them is that they can not simply be held indefinately without a trial or legal representation. It matters not what group they may or may not belong to.

In one of the death penalty threads you say you are against it because you do not trust the government to always get it right but you are O.K. with them simply aresting someone based upon someone believing they are a member of a certain group?

If the proposed Udall amendment was added onto it wouldnt' that just fix the entire issue and we'd never hear the end of it?

That's what the article claims but there appears to be questions of whether it will pass. The discussion though is on the bill as opposed to the possible amendment. It's about how slimy little scuz bags like McCain have absolutely no concern about our rights.

Well - for some, yes. . . but the loudest? No. . .. after reading many articles it seems as if people formed an opinion, first - and then scanned through the legislation and found a flaw and then had a tizzy.

Unlike Udall - who saw the flaw and said "well - we can address that . . . . here we go"

What about the other amendments ot the bill? Anyone oppose al lthat other stuff or is everyone just eyeballing this one issue?

I'm not sure. The topic is this provision.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Link can be found here (Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a)

Here is an excerpt:

While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.​

And:

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and 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 night’s 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.
​

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

​

​

(emphasis added)​

While I understand that a lot of you are not fans of the ACLU, I think that no matter what side you are on this is extremely important as it would affect the nation as a whole. All this allows for is an even larger infringement on your personal liberties that are already under attack. While it may seem far-fetched, we must remember that the Patriot Act also seemed like an amazing idea, but that had several provisions in it that allowed for our civil liberties to be curbed.

​

"this can't happen America"

What ever happened to THAT level of faith in government ?

When people like myself warned of this potential outcome, people called me "conspiracy theorist", and look at this now.

At some point, mention of the constitution will be a criminal offense, especially If this trend continues.

 

[donsutherland1]

Link can be found here (Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a)

The website's interpretation is wrong.

The operative text from S.1867 is as follows (NOTE: the underlined text):

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.

(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.

The bottom line is that the 2012 Defense authorization legislation does not curtail any of the protections currently enjoyed by American citizens.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

The website's interpretation is wrong.

The operative text from S.1867 is as follows (NOTE: the underlined text):



The bottom line is that the 2012 Defense authorization legislation does not curtail any of the protections currently enjoyed by American citizens.

Thye don't break it down - but I think the citizen ship issue applies to S 1031 and 1032 has a new problem - they don't explain the difference in the article but suggest it seeing as how the Udall Amendment applies only to 1031.

They need ot take time to explain opposition to 1032.