• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

The Threat of Indefinite Military Detention Bad for Public Health - Chilling Effect

sharon sanders

Editor-in-Chief & President
I am writing this from the heart. Full of Emotion. Please excuse any typos or grammatical mistakes. My eyes are tearing as I write.

I just can't believe it.....

Our Congress has voted to take away our rights to a speedy trial, a jury of our peers, and our right to have a trial in our local area.

They have passed a bill that will let the military come to our homes take us away and lock us up, without a trial - for years.

These provisions are buried in the huge National Defense Authorization Act. A secret conference committee of selected Senators and Congresspeople are crafting the final form of the bill to be passed by both houses and then be sent to President Obama for signature. From the ACLU:


"Behind Closed Doors: Congress Trying to Force Indefinite Detention Bill on Americans

The Senate voted last Thursday to pass S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which would authorize the president to send the military literally anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.

Now, the NDAA and its House equivalent are in conference committee. The chairmen and ranking members of the Armed Services Committee — known as "the Big Four" — have been having one secret meeting after another over the past few days to quickly write a final bill. Three congressmen of the Big Four are responsible for writing the indefinite detention provisions."




The ACLU is not the only group that is against this bill in its current form. This from Amnesty International:


"In summary, once the NDAA becomes law a US citizen on US soil can lawfully be killed by the US military if the military believes that citizen to be a terrorist affiliated with Al Qaeda or its allies.

The key word in that last sentence was “believes.” In the past ten years our intelligence hasn’t been that good. You may we recall we invaded Iraq because our intelligence indicated that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. He didn’t. No small mistake that."





This is shocking and will have a Chilling Effect on all segments of society.

Who is a terrorist exactly?

Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d)(2) defines terrorism "the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"



This is where the word "believes" is important. You do not have to take any violent action to be detained by the military - without charges being filed against you or a trial being scheduled - if anyone in the government "believes" you may be a terrorist.

Again from the ACLU:


"No corner of the world, not even your own home, would be off-limits to the military. And there is no exception for American citizens. Section 1031 — one of the indefinite detention provisions — of the Senate-approved version of the NDAA has no limitations whatsoever based on geography, duration or citizenship. And the entire Senate bill was drafted in secret, with no hearing, and with committee votes behind closed doors.

I'm not sure which was more surprising — that the majority of senators ignored the pleas of countless constituents, or that they also ignored every top national security official opposed to the provisions. Opposition to the detention provisions came from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, White House Advisor for Counterterrorism John Brennan, and DOJ National Security Division head Lisa Monaco. The Senate ignored them all."




So how does this affect public health? Well...who is going to disagree with anything that the government says if this law is passed and enacted?

It was very apparent to me at two Department of Health and Human Services media events, that I attended in Washington D.C., that the Department of Homeland Security considered a pandemic to be a threat to the United States. Not only the disease itself, but also the social disruption due to potential delays in the supply chains i.e. food and medicine. In the last pandemic we did not agree with the US official government position in several areas. One is schools. As parents we think schools should be closed when local public health authorities determine there is a public health threat. Another area where we disagree is vaccination. We are 100% against forced vaccinations for health care workers.

What will happen if we do not publish the mantra of the US government? How do we publish, analyze, critique, discuss any threatening disease or disaster situation in the United States now if the President signs this bill in its present form?

Do we even try?

I never imagined that our own elected officials would pass such a bill. It will take years for the US federal courts to sort out this mess.

I can only hope that the President will veto this bill and/or the United States federal judges will uphold the U.S. constitution:

4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

6th Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."



A very, very sad situation for freedom, democracy, and the human spirit.
 
Re: The Threat of Indefinite Military Detention Bad for Public Health - Chilling Effect

This is a grim development indeed. Similar legistlation has been enacted in the past - during the Civil War and during WWI when Woodrow Wilson wanted to silence critics of the U.S. entering the war. But, in both cases, the laws no longer applied after the wars were over.

One of the first major red flags that a government is becoming dangerous is when it gives itself the "legal" authority to silence opposition. And, I'm not talking about partisan politics because I would bet that senators from both sides of the aisle either supported the bill or so badly wanted something else in the bill that they were unwilling to oppose it.
 
Re: The Threat of Indefinite Military Detention Bad for Public Health - Chilling Effect

Just a question...wouldn't such a bill that violated multiple Constitutional Amendments be considered unconstitutional and thrown out by the courts?
 
Re: The Threat of Indefinite Military Detention Bad for Public Health - Chilling Effect

I certainly hope so.

Just a question...wouldn't such a bill that violated multiple Constitutional Amendments be considered unconstitutional and thrown out by the courts?
 
Re: The Threat of Indefinite Military Detention Bad for Public Health - Chilling Effect

96% of Congressmen Agree: Bad Legislation Is Easier To Craft In Secret
from the what-the-public-doesn't-know-will-probably-hurt-them dept
by Tim Cushing
Mon, Dec 12th 2011 8:52am

We recently discussed the National Defense Authorization Act currently working its way through the House and Senate. Both have passed their respective bills but some debate continues over a controversial provision which aims to extend indefinite military detention (without charge or trial) to cover US citizens, rather than just foreign terrorist suspects.

The whole "indefinite military detention" aspect of the bill is heinous enough even if it just ends up being used against foreign suspects. But the decision to declare US territory as a "war zone" in order to mobilize the military against US citizens is particularly worrisome. Due to the fact that this provision is highly controversial and yet another in a long line of post-PATRIOT Act attacks on the Bill of Rights, Congress has decided to move the discussion behind closed doors, presumably to avoid any scrutiny from the very public it wishes to foist this legislation upon. The vote wasn't even close:

more...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...d-legislation-is-easier-to-craft-secret.shtml
 
Re: The Threat of Indefinite Military Detention Bad for Public Health - Chilling Effect

From what I can determine the compromise bill still allows for people who are not citizens and permanent residents to be arrested and detained indefinitely, without charges or a trial.

omg...


The US constitution applies to anyone on US soil.

The Congress can not void parts of the Constitution for certain people.

Just unreal.....

Hey...maybe Disney World can start a new promotion...."The Incognito Tour" for the millions of international visitors they used to get each year. :surrender:
 
Re: The Threat of Indefinite Military Detention Bad for Public Health - Chilling Effect

Does the bill give that power to the President or does the bill itself declare U.S. soil a war zone?

The whole "indefinite military detention" aspect of the bill is heinous enough even if it just ends up being used against foreign suspects. But the decision to declare US territory as a "war zone" in order to mobilize the military against US citizens is particularly worrisome.
 
Re: The Threat of Indefinite Military Detention Bad for Public Health - Chilling Effect

This is the latest version that I can find:

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.
(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).

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.

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

Apparently War can be declared inside the US & 1032 does not exclude tourists, students, others like 1031 does. Seems any non-citizen can be detained by the military on any accusation of a "belligerent" act.

People can be detained without hearings, trials, general due process, until hostilities are over. When is the War on Terror over? Is that like the War on Drugs?

Maybe there is a new version that changes the above but according to people who worked on this, the above snips are substantially the same:

“I am concerned that we were unable to strip a few ill-conceived measures from the bill. Requiring that terrorist detainees be held in military custody is overly burdensome on the Administration’s efforts to combat terrorism. However, provisions that have been included have helped assuage concerns about potential detention of US citizens in military custody and the flexibility of counterterrorism efforts by the FBI...."

http://www.golocalprov.com/news/new-langevin-signs-on-national-defense-report/
 
Re: The Threat of Indefinite Military Detention Bad for Public Health - Chilling Effect

Wow...
 
Re: The Threat of Indefinite Military Detention Bad for Public Health - Chilling Effect

In addition to all the other problems, it is Discriminatory.

It creates a sub-class of people who do not get the rights promised in the US Constitution.

The Rights in the US Constitution apply to EVERYONE on US soil. Period. No exceptions.

This is outrageous. I know what people are thinking.. "Hey, I have nothing to worry about, I am a US citizen". Or, "This is only for terrorists".

But - when basic rights are denied to any one person, they are denied to all of us. Now that the door has been opened, these basics rights have been eroded. Over time progressive changes may not be noticed. Most of the people affected initially will not be US citizens.

A TRAVESTY - Obviously we have learned NOTHING from the past..... :( :( :(


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_OiPldKsM5w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Re: The Threat of Indefinite Military Detention Bad for Public Health - Chilling Effect

from Human Rights Watch on the rumour that President Obama will sign the NDAA:

snip

?By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law,? said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. ?In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side.?

The far-reaching detainee provisions would codify indefinite detention without trial into US law for the first time since the McCarthy era when Congress in 1950 overrode the veto of then-President Harry Truman and passed the Internal Security Act. The bill would also bar the transfer of detainees currently held at Guantanamo into the US for any reason, including for trial. In addition, it would extend restrictions, imposed last year, on the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to home or third countries ? even those cleared for release by the administration.

more..

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights
 
Re: The Threat of Indefinite Military Detention Bad for Public Health - Chilling Effect

Obama did sign the bill. The provision regarding mandatory detention of non-citizens was 'watered down' enough to suit him. However it looks like all that was changed was to give the President more power to determine whether someone is detained, rather than the Defense Dept.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57343287/wh-oks-military-detention-of-terrorism-suspects/

The section regarding detention of US citizens seems unchanged so it is codified into US law that at the discretion of the President, we citizens can be turned over to the military to be held without trial until the end of the 'war on terrorism.'

http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showpost.php?p=430503&postcount=5
 
Re: The Threat of Indefinite Military Detention Bad for Public Health - Chilling Effect

Edward R. Murrow on McCarthy and the Fear Mongering on Communism -

Now it is "Terrorism". We are being manipulated into accepting less rights to fight terrorism.

?The line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly.

We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep into our own history and our doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes which were for the moment unpopular.

This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthty?s methods to keep silent. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result.?


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/anNEJJYLU8M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Re: The Threat of Indefinite Military Detention Bad for Public Health - Chilling Effect

Thanks Emily. I think the President has not signed it yet, but indicated he will. Also, from my reading of the actual wording in post 8 above, US citizens are exempt. This does not make the situation any better because US law will be creating 2 different standards of justice: one for citizens and one for everyone else.


Just unbelievable.

Very, very, sad.
 
Re: The Threat of Indefinite Military Detention Bad for Public Health - Chilling Effect

Sharon, I had an error in that post I linked to that might have been confusing. It is section 1031 that I think includes US citizens. This section does not mandate indefinite detention by the military, but allows it at the discretion of the President. This one does not have the exclusion in 1032:
(I see you have a different version of 1031 quoted above, but I have the second version listed, which they say is the latest.)
There are 2 versions of Bill Number S.1867 for the 112th Congress. Usually, the last item is the most recent.
1 . National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Placed on Calendar Senate - PCS)[S.1867.PCS][PDF]
2 . National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)[S.1867.ES][PDF]

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).

The ACLU thinks the bill will codify detention of US citizens.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/white-house-backs-away-defense-bill-veto-threat

Here's an analysis by Glen Greewald with more details. I had no idea AUMF already gave the President the power to detain American citizens.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/singleton/undefinedsingleton/
First, while the powers this bill enshrines are indeed radical and dangerous, most of them already exist. That’s because first the Bush administration and now the Obama administration have aggressively argued that the original 2001 AUMF already empowers them to imprison people without charges, use force against even U.S. citizens without due process (Anwar Awlaki), and target not only members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban (as the law states) but also anyone who “substantially supports” those groups and/or “associated forces” (whatever those terms mean). That’s why this bill states that it does not intend to change the 2001 AUMF (even as it codifies far broader language defining the scope of the war) or the detention powers of the President, and it’s why they purposely made the bill vague on whether it expressly authorizes military detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil: it’s because the bill’s proponents and the White House both believe that the President already possesses these broadened powers with or without this bill. With a couple of exceptions, this bill just “clarifies” — and codifies — the powers President Obama has already claimed, seized and exercised.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Threat of Indefinite Military Detention Bad for Public Health - Chilling Effect

The President has many powers in an emergency but those emergencies can have a more defined time frame, like a pandemic. 6 weeks? A year maybe? A 2 year maximum:

The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) is a United States federal law passed in 1976 to stop open-ended states of national emergency and formalize the power of Congress to provide certain checks and balances on the emergency powers of the President. The act sets a limit of two years on states of national emergency. It also imposes certain "procedural formalities" on the President when invoking such powers.
The perceived need for the law arose from the scope and number of laws granting special powers to the executive in times of national emergency (or public danger).
At least two constitutional rights are subject to revocation during a state of emergency:
The right of habeas corpus, under Article 1, Section 9;
The right to a grand jury for members of the National Guard when in actual service, under Fifth Amendment.

In addition, many provisions of statutory law are contingent on a state of national emergency, as many as 500 by one count.[1]
It was due in part to concern that a declaration of "emergency" for one purpose should not invoke every possible executive emergency power that Congress in 1976 passed the National Emergencies Act. Among other provisions, this act requires the President to declare formally a national emergency and to specify the statutory authorities to be used under such a declaration.
There were 32 declared national emergencies between 1976 and 2001. [2] Most of these were for the purpose of restricting trade with certain foreign entities under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1701-1707).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act


The war on terror will be endless.....

The Senate has passed the bill and now it goes to the President:


"...Final action came when the Senate approved the bill in an 86-13 vote, a day after Obama retreated from a veto threat on the legislation. The administration was unhappy with the intrusion into its authority over counterterrorism matters but relented when some of its flexibility was restored."


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/15/us-usa-defense-idUSTRE7BE23X20111215


The AUMF is too broad, but it does specify broad Presidential powers only in regards to the September 11, 2011 event.

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.


Emily - When I click on the Library of Congress - Thomas link I get this version which is different than yours...jeez....no wonder people can not keep up with this issue....

S.1867

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)
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.
(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).


:confused:
 
Re: The Threat of Indefinite Military Detention Bad for Public Health - Chilling Effect

This is the conference bill which describes how the House and Senate bills are reconciled:

page 158 of http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/legislativetext/HR1540conf.pdf

Subtitle D?Counterterrorism

Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United
States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization
for Use of Military Force (sec. 1021)
The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1034) that would
affirm that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict
with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces.
The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1031) that
would affirm the authority of the Armed Forces of the United
States to detain certain covered persons pursuant to the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40).
The provision would not 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.
The House recedes.


Military custody for foreign al-Qaeda terrorists (sec. 1022)

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1032) that
would require military custody for foreign al-Qaeda terrorists
who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40),
subject to a national security waiver. Under the provision, the
President would have broad authority to issue implementation
procedures, including but not limited to deciding who makes a
determination of coverage, how the determination is made, and
when it is made.
The House bill contained no similar provision.
The House recedes with an amendment providing that nothing 159
in this provision shall be construed to affect the existing
criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law
enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless
whether such covered person is held in military custody. The
law enforcement and national security tools that would not be
affected in any way by this provision include, but would not be
limited to, Grand Jury subpoenas, national security letters, and
actions pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(Public Law 95-511). The amendment would also authorize the
President, rather than the Secretary of Defense, to waive the
requirements of the provision
 
Re: The Threat of Indefinite Military Detention Bad for Public Health - Chilling Effect

Sharon, I agree that your version of sec. 1031 is the latest one. (Don't ask me why I thought in my last post that it was not. :confused: The version I have there is certainly the first listed here, and seemingly not the one passed by the Senate today.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:
There are 2 versions of Bill Number S.1867 for the 112th Congress. Usually, the last item is the most recent.
1 . National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Placed on Calendar Senate - PCS)[S.1867.PCS][PDF]
2 . National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)[S.1867.ES][PDF]

Sorry to add to the confusion on that. But I still think that the President has the authority under sec. 1031 to have the military take custody of US citizens.

(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.

I think there is no exemption for citizens there as there is in sec. 1032. I think that just affirms and codifies "Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40)" which gave the office the authority after 9/11.

I could be wrong, but I think the exemption in 1032 is specific to 1032. I was listening to Norman Goldman on the radio and he disagrees and thinks the exemption in 1032 applies to 1031. I believe he was a lawyer before he became a talk show host. He also thinks that even if he is wrong and US citizens are subject to sec 1031, that would be unconstitutional and you defend them that way.

If it ever comes to that, it will take years and lots of money to get citizens out of military detention. Peaceful dissidents could be silenced (or worse) for years because of precedents set during legal proceedings against less sympathetic prisoners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28prisoner%29
 
Re: The Threat of Indefinite Military Detention Bad for Public Health - Chilling Effect

I agree with you. I think 1031 and 1032 are separate. I also think the US Constitution is one of the "existing laws" that 1031 is referring to so everyone on US soil is protected de facto. Of course, trying to fight this out in court would be onerous as you say.

I think there must have been some last minute change to include this:

"..or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."
 
Re: The Threat of Indefinite Military Detention Bad for Public Health - Chilling Effect

"..or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

That should reassure residents and tourists that they have the same right to a transparent justice system as citizens have here. I've read a couple of comments here and there by people avoiding passing through our airports due to fear of the TSA, etc, so we have to stop that trend for the sake of tourism and commerce.

That is a great video of Edward R. Murrow in the post above, by the way.:)
 
Back
Top