2012-01-02T20:44:24Z opencongress.org tag:opencongress.org,2007:/bill/comments/73345 2012-01-02T20:44:24Z tag:opencongress.org,2012-01-02:/comment/242348 restoreruleoflaw There’s still a chance to fix this! Help eliminate indefinite detention and restore due process by contacting your representatives and urge them to support the bill H.R.3676. H.R.3676 is a one page bill that in clear, unambiguous language amends the detainee provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 to specifically state that United States citizens may not be detained against their will without all the rights of due process afforded to citizens in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution of the United States. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3676/show 2012-01-02T08:41:35Z tag:opencongress.org,2012-01-02:/comment/242321 walker7 Here is a must-read article on the NDAA: http://lezgetreal.com/2012/01/what-the-ndaa-is-and-isnt/ I hope that those nasty unconstitutional provisions in this bill are challenged in court and removed ASAP. 2011-12-26T18:00:06Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-12-26:/comment/241641 toolib @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)." 2011-12-29T11:57:48Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-12-29:/comment/242037 glyoko 15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS 16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.— 17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The <b>require</b> 18 <b>ment</b> 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 <b>require</b> 22 <b>ment</b> 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 <b>permitted</b> 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 <b>have</b> 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. 2011-11-30T22:45:53Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-11-30:/comment/239787 WasMiddleClass 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. 2011-11-30T06:16:21Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-11-30:/comment/239751 toray99 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. 2011-11-30T08:18:00Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-11-30:/comment/239753 mmeridith 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??? 2011-11-30T12:10:23Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-11-30:/comment/239761 RalphFucetolaJD 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. 2011-11-30T12:41:32Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-11-30:/comment/239762 carthage 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. 2011-11-30T22:46:52Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-11-30:/comment/239788 WasMiddleClass Read the Military Detention Bill http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2438-Read-the-Military-Detention-Bill- 2011-11-30T22:53:35Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-11-30:/comment/239789 WasMiddleClass Obama Signs 'Plain Writing' Law http://abcnews.go.com/WN/obama-signs-law-understand/story?id=11902841#.Ttb57ogZZZM 2011-11-28T09:15:49Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-11-28:/comment/239658 malymisiek 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 <b>does not </b>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 <b>does not </b>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. 2011-11-30T06:14:17Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-11-30:/comment/239750 toray99 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. 2011-12-05T00:11:00Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-12-05:/comment/240074 jdeutenberg 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! 2011-12-05T12:16:34Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-12-05:/comment/240087 adipesh I'm sorry, but I can't find the link to the full text of this bill. why is it not showing up on the main bill page? 2011-11-29T08:31:12Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-11-29:/comment/239720 bpitas 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. 2011-12-07T18:48:43Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-12-07:/comment/240319 WasMiddleClass I have been trying to come up with some fitting words for this anniversary of Peal Harbor. I can not come up with any better than these from a Pear Harbor survivor. “Freedom is never free, It looks like it never will be” 2011-12-08T19:02:45Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-12-08:/comment/240378 constituent0456 Sections 1031 thru 1047 do not belong in an appropriations bill. They grant new powers to the Pres/DOD and address legal rights of "unpriviledged enemy belligerents" subject to arrest or currently detained. Section 1245 is equally dangerous! It allows sanctions to be imposed on Iran and it's central bank. It gives powers to the Pres to carry out foreign policy up to and including the seizing of monies from national and international entities determined to have financial interests in Iran, and allows for broader powers to be used to sanction the purchase of Iranian oil by foreign interests if the Pres deems others sources to be readily available, at a comparable price. The report used to base such a sweeping squeeze on global oil markets (by way of limiting the activities of central banks across the globe) was published only ten days before this policy was written into this appropriations bill. Can this be our best response? Shouldn't such a policy be open to debate before enactment? 2011-12-07T18:52:37Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-12-07:/comment/240322 WasMiddleClass Dragon software needs to be spell checked sometimes... Pearl... Sorry 2011-12-08T21:53:42Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-12-08:/comment/240391 Tokishone I am thoroughly scared at this point.... If they are given the ability to arrest ANYONE suspected of terrorism, with out fair trial, things are going to get ugly... Plus, there is a reason they are now making FEMA camps available for use.... It's the end of our beautiful country... it's the end, and it's coming fast...