First computers......now people

[sigurdur]

www.lewrockwell.com/peters-e/peters-e124.html

The world's governments are getting very scared. The US passes a Defense Authorization that includes detention of US citizens.

Britian siezes puters because the AGW?

Sheeeeeesh..........

[slh1234]

Eric Peters in his article claims:

The National Defense Authorization Act will make it official. It will confer upon the executive branch and the military (increasingly, the same things) the permanent authority to snatch and grab any person, U.S. citizens included, whom it decrees to be a “terrorist” – as defined or not by the executive or the military - and imprison them, indefinitely, without formal charge, presentation of evidence or judicial proceeding of any kind. These “detainees” will have neither civilian rights in the civil court system, nor – crucially – even the minimal rights to due process and decent treatment conferred upon prisoners of war. (And we are allegedly “at war,” are we not?)

(That came from Sigurdur's link above. The bold was mine)

But here is the link to the law as was passed:

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/pdf/BILLS-112s1867es.pdf

Sections 1031 and 1032 are the controversial sections I think. Section 1032 lays down the requirement for military detention and it actually says of US citizens and lawful aliens:

8 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
9 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
10 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under
12 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
13 States.
14 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under
16 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
17 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
18 taking place within the United States, except to the
19 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
20 States.

(find this on page 430)

The bill passed the Senate on December 15th. Eric Peters' article purports to have been published on December 15th. I got the link to the bill from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act

I'm going to say that there are things I read in the bill that I don't like, but Eric Peters is either out of date, or just deceptive in his treatment of this in his post. Well, I guess there is one other possibility and that is that he is taking someone's word for it instead of reading it for himself.

I didn't really see anything about Britain in the article, but if he starts off so badly, and it is the same person, I'm going to have some difficulty taking the rest too seriously.

Feel free to show me where I'm wrong, though.

[sigurdur]

slh1234:
What section b1 does is remove the requirement that a detainee be held in military custory. However, it does not mean that you can't be. That is what is wrong with this bill and these sections.

[slh1234]

Is the issue one of military custody? or habeas corpus?

Habeas Corpus is explicitly included in the constitution of the US in Article 1, section 9, second paragraph where it says:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Ref: archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

It was tested during the US Civil War when Lincoln suspended the Write of Habeas Corpus. That suspension was later overturned in court, but Lincoln overturned it resulting in a lot of congressional gridlock on the matter until a compromise was finally reached.

In this case, I really can't see the courts upholding any suspension. Maybe we could have another case where the president ignored the court order, but that would happen with, or without congressional action.

However; read sections 1031 and 1032. The covered persons are laid out in subsection b of 1031.

16 SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
17 FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN
18 COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU19
THORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
20 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
22 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
23 Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the
24 Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered per
1 sons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition
2 under the law of war.
3 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
4 this section is any person as follows:
5 (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
7 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
9 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
10 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
11 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
12 States or its coalition partners, including any person
13 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
14 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
15 forces.

It also goes on to say in section 1031 e:

10 (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
11 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
12 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
13 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
14 captured or arrested in the United States.

Do you see that as consistent with the section I quoted from Eric Peters?

Really, I don't like parts of the law as written, and I let both of my senators know this. Maybe those letters had something to do with the ammendments that softened the language somewhat. However; what Eric Peters is doing is what politically motivated people normally do: Exaggerate and influence people to one particular cause regardless of what is right. What he is claiming is just not what the law says.

[sigurdur]

slh1234:
It is really a question of habeas corpus.

I am not a huge fan of the ACLU, but in this case I believe they are 100% correct.

The wording was softened somewhat, but what this really is is an extension of previous authorizations.

Did you notice that when the American Citizen was killed by OUR forces, without trial, in Lebanon I believe, that there was very little outcry. He was accused of being a member of Al Queda, but never tried, yet sumarily executed.

We are on very treacherous grounds as a free nation in my opinion.

[slh1234]

Dec 20, 2011 4:38:01 GMT sigurdur said:

slh1234:
It is really a question of habeas corpus.

I am not a huge fan of the ACLU, but in this case I believe they are 100% correct.

The wording was softened somewhat, but what this really is is an extension of previous authorizations.

Did you notice that when the American Citizen was killed by OUR forces, without trial, in Lebanon I believe, that there was very little outcry. He was accused of being a member of Al Queda, but never tried, yet sumarily executed.

We are on very treacherous grounds as a free nation in my opinion.

But it says in 1031d:

6 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President
8 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
9 Force.

So is it really an extension of power? One has to wonder what the intent of the law is. It says it is not to extend the power or authority of the president or the scope of the authorization for use of military force. (Personal note: The more I'm reading the bill, the more comfortable I'm becoming with the wording).

But Sig, I don't think our record is quite a stellar as you are implying with the last statement. One of the reasons I don't really like the law is when I'm looking back at WWII, and the US treatment of the Japanese Americans or Japanese (who may not have been American) who lived in the US. I've said before that my wife is immigrant, and in such a situation, you can probably guess that many of our friends are also immigrant. Neither of us favor the illegal immigration laws that get proposed occasionally - we're not for lawlessness. However; I don't want anything in place that can be used to allow for use of power as was used against the Japanese living in the US in WWII.

On the other side of that issue, are you familiar with the stories of the Nisei soldiers? They had every right to complain about injustice against them, but they chose a different path. It wasn't until decades later that their contribution was actually recognized:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=McBvFoP0lDg

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgbEuPokfWA

www.youtube.com/watch?src_vid=WgbEuPokfWA&v=NOcnz9gvWaI&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_224877

Back to the original, I still don't think the law says what the article claims it says. However; I don't like what can be done, and has been done in some cases under the guise of national security. I am for security, but I am fully in support of the checks and balances among the branches of government. In this case, I want someone to have their day in court. I actually want that for those who are not citizens, but who live here as well. On a battlefield, the situation changes (I know) ... where is the balance? At home, where armies are not arrayed for battle, and there is not surrender in the sense that you see in battlefields, I don't support taking of prisoners and holding them as POWs.

I'm not alarmed the way that the blogger is trying to alarm us, though.

[sigurdur]

slh1234:
I have researched the Nisei soilders in the past. Their contribution was stunning to say the least.
What section 1031 and 1032 have done is entrench the previously given power of detention. It started with the Patriot Act, was enhanced in previous authorization bills, and is even more enhanced with this bill.
I have been quite concerned for some time, and am now even more concerned with the wording now.
The wording was softened, but it should have been removed and the authorization suspended as per the Udal amendment. That didn't happen. I am very disappointed that the language was included and as a result of their votes, I will not vote for one Senator, as the other is retireing, nor my representative as he also voted for this. It shows their lack of understanding, or else it shows intent to have in place authorization to take a suspect and detain him/her without proper review nor warrant. Just my opinion, but shared by the ACLU.

[sigurdur]

I don't know if Judge Napolitano has anything on this particular bill, but he sure does concerning the Patriot Act.

OH well, maybe Ron Paul will win the nomination and put the powers back as intended. We certainly have no reason to live in fear.

[slh1234]

See, now there you took a partisan turn with it. That's exactly why I think it is important to read the law carefully rather than take someone's word for it, even if that someone has a blog as Eric Peters does. I guess I'll leave the conversation by saying that I don't think the law says what it is being portrayed as saying, and so I'm not following at the beginning. I'm certainly not following on into the Ron Paul camp.