S.1867 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. view all titles (9)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Short: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 as introduced.
  • Short: Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 as introduced.
  • Short: Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 as reported to senate.
  • Short: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 as reported to senate.
  • Short: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 as passed senate.
  • Short: Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 as passed senate.
  • Short: National Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense Integration Act of 2011 as passed senate.
  • Short: SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011 as passed senate.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 47 total comments.

  • toray99 11/27/2011 11:04am

    But there is a way to stop this dangerous legislation Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is offering the Udall Amendment that will delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power. The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values
    The solution is the Udall Amendment a way for the Senate to say no to indefinite detention without charge or trial anywhere in the world where any president decides to use the military Instead of simply going along with a bill that was drafted in secret and is being jammed through the Senate the Udall Amendment deletes the provisions and sets up an orderly review of detention power It tries to take the politics out and put American values back in

  • toray99 11/27/2011 11:06am

    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.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.
    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.

  • jongaskell 11/27/2011 1:18pm

    Please read the actual text of the bill before you make your judgments. Don’t believe all the hype until you read it. Here’s some of the actual wording:

    S.1867
    Sec.1031(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in-
    19 tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
    20 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
    21 Force.

    Also pay close attention to sec.1031(b)
    COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
    16 this section is any person as follows: (it specifies people associated with specific terrorist organizations – read it.)

    It’s okay to oppose the bill if you don’t like it. I don’t love the bill myself, but please don’t let the hype machine get to you – decide for yourself. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf (sections mentioned above are on about page 360)

    I don’t care if its the Left or Right, the media is all people advancing their own agendas. As an American, you are empowered to advance YOUR own agenda.

  • Comm_reply
    bpitas 11/29/2011 8:31am
    Link Reply
    + 16

    The problem with this bill (and almost all bills that mention the word “terror”, “terrorist”, “terrorism”, or “war on terror”, like the misnamed Patriot Act) is that terrorism is a tactic, not a person or group of people.

    By a strict definition of “terrorism”, some tactics employed by the US army could classify them as a “terrorist organization”, but that’s not the point.

    Since “Terrorism” is a tactic, in order to call someone a “terrorist”, you need to give that person a fair trial and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person in question did in fact use terrorist tactics. Bills like this give the US Government the ability to skip that step and classify someone as a “terrorist” arbitrarily without a fair trial, which is no different than giving the Executive branch the power to call someone a murderer and execute them on the spot. Once you start going down that path, the potential for abuse is catastrophic! Section 1031 needs to be removed.

  • Comm_reply
    wardo1234 12/19/2011 7:07pm

    jongaskell,
    The problem is, all they have to do is say that you are associated with a terrorist group and you can be killed/detained indefinitely. Imagine I was President I can say “jongaskell is associated with al-qaeda, he can now be killed or detained indefinitely”. See the problem now? Have you woken up yet??

  • Comm_reply
    toolib 12/26/2011 6:00pm

    @jongaskell,

    The scope of Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) has not been limited since the Patriot Act. This means U.S. citizens can fall under section 1031. Go read the updated comments and find out how others interpret the language.

    The quote “Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand authority…” does not explicitly say — U.S. citizens are not subject to this bill! Because they absolutely are subject to military force under the Patriot Act, and they are currently, they will be in the future.

    You have to take the whole bill into context, and read the comments by other people to get a clear picture about what this bill is saying:
    “You will be detained if you aid al-Qaeda, even if you’re an American (Sec. 1031). There will be no trial by jury, and you will only have access to military counsel (Sec. 1035). The penalty is death (Sec. 1037).”

  • jongaskell 11/27/2011 1:28pm

    Please read the actual text of the bill before you believe the hype over Sections 1031 and 1032.

    (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
    16 this section is any person as follows:
    17 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com-
    18 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
    19 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon-
    20 sible for those attacks.
    21 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
    22 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
    23 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
    24 States or its coalition partners, including any person
    25 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly

    p.360
    1 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
    2 forces.

    18 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in-
    19 tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
    20 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
    21 Force.

    S.1867 Full Text

  • Comm_reply
    RalphFucetolaJD 11/30/2011 12:10pm

    IMHO, a careful reading of 1031 and 12032 shows that, though pretending to protect US citizens, the law actually does the opposite. I write more about this in detail at: http://tinyurl.com/NoS-1867

    1032 only “exempts” citizens from US military protection, mandating that the military turn-over citizens it may be holding for rendition as determined by the national executive.

    What it does is to make sure that members of US military will violate their Oath to defend the Constitution, including those provisions of the Bill of Rights protecting us from arbitrary executive power.

    This is yet another assault on the Constitution by the Bush/Obama right/left neocon cabal.

  • WasMiddleClass 11/27/2011 8:04pm

    I’m just reading up on this one after someone sent me the ACLU article on it.

    Of the several articles I read so far on it from both sides I find this one informative.

    http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/s-1867-the-department-of-defense-authorization-act-its-more-convoluted-than-you-think/

  • malymisiek 11/28/2011 9:15am

    Page 362

    15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
    16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
    17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require
    18 ment to detain a person in military custody under
    19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
    20 States.
    21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require
    22 ment to detain a person in military custody under
    23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
    24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
    25 taking place within the United States, except to the

    page 363

    1 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
    2 States.

  • Comm_reply
    glyoko 12/29/2011 11:57am

    15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
    16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
    17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require
    18 ment to detain a person in military custody under
    19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
    20 States.
    21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require
    22 ment to detain a person in military custody under
    23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
    24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
    25 taking place within the United States, except to the

    page 363

    1 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
    2 States.

    Note that this doesn’t forbid the military from detaining US citizens, it instead only makes it so that the military doesn’t have to detain US citizens. It says nothing about the military not being allowed to indefinitely detain US citizens, except that they can choose not to. The language here is tricky.

  • carthage 11/29/2011 5:48pm

    I am no legal scholar, but it does look to me like this most recent make of the bill does exclude US citizens and even lawful foreign residents from the military detainment. The only sites I can find that talk about that though consistently couch the subject in their own pet conspiracy theories, and I haven’t been able to find a truly plain, basic look at this. I still think some of the bill opens some doors that shouldn’t be(though there is a long list of amendments up for review that address most of these), but is it really as sweepingly bad as some say it is? I’m just not really sure, and I’d like some commentary on it that doesn’t then try to show how it’s proof of OWS trying to kill capitalism and create a police state.

  • toray99 11/30/2011 5:58am

    “One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved,” Colorado Senator Mark Udall said in a speech earlier this month.
    Following an ACLU alert on the legislation, some pointed out that the text of the bill actually exempts Americans from being detained under the new “homeland battlefield” designation under the proviso that “the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

  • toray99 11/30/2011 6:00am

    However, as Republican Congressman Justin Amash told the The Grand Rapids Press today, the language of the bill is “carefully crafted to mislead the public.”

    “Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary,” Amash wrote on his Facebook page.

  • toray99 11/30/2011 6:03am

    As far back as December 2002, the Washington Post reported that a “parallel legal system” had been put in place under the auspices of the war on terror, in which terrorism suspects — U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike — may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system.”

    The “battlefield” provision of the NDAA is nothing new, it is merely an updating of existing policy that has been applied to American citizens on numerous occasions over the last decade.

    The difference is that the danger of American citizens being detained without trial as terrorists on frivolous pretexts is an even greater danger now given that the Department of Homeland Security has characterized behavior such as buying gold, owning guns, using a watch or binoculars, donating to charity, using the telephone or email to find information, using cash, and all manner of mundane behaviors as potential indicators of domestic terrorism.

  • toray99 11/30/2011 6:07am

    Section 1031 of S. 1253 “would be the first exception to the statute’s protections.” Subsection (d) provides US citizens “little or no” indefinite detention protections domestically or abroad.

    The provision refers solely to “citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States.” However, the Constitution fully protects them.

    “Section 1031 could cause cleared naturalized United States citizens and cleared immigrants to be sent to a foreign country, even in the absence of any wrongdoing.”

    Subsection © provides four options:

    indefinite detention without charge;

    military commission trials;

    trial by another tribunal; or

    transfer “to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.”

    Even someone erroneously arrested and cleared of wrongdoing could be held indefinitely without charge, given non-civil trials, or sent abroad.

  • toray99 11/30/2011 6:12am

    Section 1031 would authorize similar practices. Military forces could be used. US citizens would be terrorized, detained and held indefinitely without charge or trial, based solely on suspicions, baseless allegations or none at all.

    No reasonable proof is required, just suspicions that those detained pose threats. Under subsection (b)(1), indefinite detentions can follow mere membership or support for suspect organizations.

    US citizens at home and abroad could be detained. Presidents would have unchecked authority to arrest, interrogate and indefinitely detain law-abiding citizens if accused of potentially posing a threat.

    Constitutional, statute and international law won’t apply. Martial law will replace it. As a result, anyone for any reason or none at all could be indefinitely detained for life without charges or trial.

  • toray99 11/30/2011 6:14am

    Section 1031 exceeds the laws of war. Its ambiguities and excesses would institute extrajudicial national security state terror. No one anywhere would be safe.

    It calls “covered persons” anyone captured or detained, even unconnected to hostilities. In other words, the executive could order anyone indefinitely incarcerated on his say alone. The provision would exceed current presidential authority.

    Like the companion House bill, detention would be authorized based on alleged prior associations with suspect groups. US military personnel anywhere in the world would be able to seize US citizens and others.

    Anyone could be incarcerated for life with no possibility for redress. Section 1032 requires suspects held in military custody, outside constitutionally mandated civil protections.

    Due process and judicial review won’t apply. Police state lawlessness could terrorize anyone suspected of terrorist group ties without proof.

  • toray99 11/30/2011 6:16am

    In other words, presidents could order anyone imprisoned for life without cause. Despotic regimes operate this way. So would America more extrajudicially than ever.

    Tyranny will replace constitutional law. Middle of the night arrests could become common. No one anywhere would be safe, including unjustly accused citizens.

  • mmeridith 11/30/2011 8:18am

    Section 1031(b)(2) Covered Persons, Line 24/25 “…including any person who has committed a belligerent act…”

    This does not mean terrorist act, this does not mean in support of Al Queda, This power is to Broad & Too Vague…

    Who shall decide what constitutes beligerant act? Someone reading the US Contitution aloud to a crowd or a pastor ministering his church or some young clueless OWS’er that craps on a police car???

  • brianlarsen45 11/30/2011 10:40am

    Careful how you read this. It’s written to make you think U.S. Citizens are protected.

    Senate Bill 1867, Section 1032(b)
    (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 Language says there’s no “REQUIREMENT”, it doesn’t say they cannot detain or must “exclude”. I cannot find another section, including all wording in 1031 that specifically excludes citizens.

  • Comm_reply
    carthage 11/30/2011 12:41pm

    I have to agree with you, my understanding of that wording after thinking about it is that “requirement” refers to the conditions the army has to meet to justify detaining someone, so saying that requirement doesn’t exist for U.S. citizens means you don’t have to have such justification. Again, I’m not a legal scholar so my understanding could be off, but from what we’ve already heard of the government’s practice of “secret interpretations”(read: Patriot Act), if I could come up with this reading, surely a government agency could.

  • Comm_reply
    MontanaGirl 12/03/2011 9:56pm

    1031 (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.

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 12/04/2011 11:18pm

    We could debate the Patriot act again too, but…

    ACLU Sues Government to Find Out Secret Interpretation of Patriot Act

    http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/aclu-sues-government-find-out-secret-interpretation-patriot-act

    NYTimes Sues The Federal Government For Refusing To Reveal Its Secret Interpretation Of The PATRIOT Act

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111010/04043716279/nytimes-sues-federal-government-refusing-to-reveal-its-secret-interpretation-patriot-act.shtml

  • Comm_reply
    michtu 12/05/2011 11:25pm

    Not only that, on page 362, section 1032(4), if I’m sourcing it correctly, it states:

    (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The
    9 Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the
    10 Secretary of State and the Director of National In-
    11 telligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if
    12 the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in
    13 writing that such a waiver is in the national security
    14 interests of the United States.

    Sounds to me like a pretty easy way to skirt any of the other sections, citizen or not.

  • WasMiddleClass 11/30/2011 10:45pm

    I have done some reading on this bill so far. What I find interesting is that many from both sides of the political spectrum are saying it is bad, but for different reasons.

    I second the comment on the “secret interpretation” of the Patriot act.

    Was not there a reason laws are supposed to be written in common language?

    It looks bad to me.

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 11/30/2011 10:53pm

    Obama Signs ‘Plain Writing’ Law

    http://abcnews.go.com/WN/obama-signs-law-understand/story?id=11902841#.Ttb57ogZZZM

  • WasMiddleClass 11/30/2011 10:46pm

    Read the Military Detention Bill

    http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2438-Read-the-Military-Detention-Bill-

  • jewsuslives 12/03/2011 11:19pm

    It doesn’t matter how the bill defines a “covered person”, if there is no judicial review, then definitions don’t matter. This bill is a death blow to the American republic. If it passes, I fully expect political assassinations and a military coup in the US by 2030.

  • jdeutenberg 12/05/2011 12:11am

    Today, thanks to all of you, the sun has begun to set on our republic. Once the bill gets passed into law(and it will), the floodgates allowing the misuse of power by law enforcement officials. Abuse brutality and death of the Sovereign Citizens of this nation will surely follow on a scale no less appalling than genocide. You have unanimously begun the dissolution of the principles the founding fathers gave their lives for. You have usurped, defiled and committed an act of terror against we the people .
    ALL OF YOU SHOULD BE INCARCERATED, WITHOUT FORMALLY BEING CHARGED, DENIED THE RIGHT FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL AND EXECUTED FOR GRAND TREASON AND SEDITION using the provisions set forth by senate bill 1867. We the people would like to make a citizen’s arrest against the progenitor’s of Fascism, Our Elected Officials!


Vote on This Bill

3% Users Support Bill

20 in favor / 654 opposed
 

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments