78 replies to this topic

[Vulpesveritas]

Brother Grim, on 24 January 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

The military police cannot act with imputinty, especially against civillian targets. General Dempsey has more to fear from MPs than the average Joe on the street. What you fail to mention about the NDAA is that it has heavily slashed funding for the military, most of those cuts focused against the Marines and the Army. The Army alone is set to lose ~50,000 soldiers as it reduces size to fit the new budget constraints. Yes, most of those positions being lost are combat arms, but there will still be cuts across the board, and the only people in the military authorised to detain individuals outside of a combat zone are MPs.

This is all fearmongering as Stone said, although I wouldn't say it's quite as bad as it was in Germany

[Listless Nomad]

Here is the literal text of section 1021:

Quote

(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;50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection ( 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.

© 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.

I've Italicized two important sections. The one defining belligerent act as only with a person who has supported the Taliban/Al Qaeda/Foreign power - and the one stating that this section does not change laws relating to American citizens. Can you point out for me where it gives the military the power to assassinate americans willy nilly?

This is from section 1022:

Quote

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.

Edited by Listless Nomad, 24 January 2012 - 06:02 PM.

[STi]

Brother Grim, on 24 January 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

The military police cannot act with imputinty, especially against civillian targets. General Dempsey has more to fear from MPs than the average Joe on the street. What you fail to mention about the NDAA is that it has heavily slashed funding for the military, most of those cuts focused against the Marines and the Army. The Army alone is set to lose ~50,000 soldiers as it reduces size to fit the new budget constraints. Yes, most of those positions being lost are combat arms, but there will still be cuts across the board, and the only people in the military authorised to detain individuals outside of a combat zone are MPs.

This is all fearmongering as Stone said, although I wouldn't say it's quite as bad as it was in Germany

You're right, but people are thinking about the future. The majority of the opposition doesn't actually care about real war-time detainee's lol

[Trireaper]

haha they cant even get the date right
anyways, this is the completely wrong place to have this discussion... even if this is the off topics area.
though if we are... Anonymous is just causing more trouble for the rest of us making it even harder for anyone to do anything. while they are trying to do something good, it is going to have the complete opposite effect sadly

[Vulpesveritas]

Listless Nomad, on 24 January 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

Here is the literal text of section 1021:

[/i]

I've Italicized two important sections. The one defining belligerent act as only with a person who has supported the Taliban/Al Qaeda/Foreign power - and the one stating that this section does not change laws relating to American citizens. Can you point out for me where it gives the military the power to assassinate americans willy nilly?

[color=#000000]Section 1022 continues that detaining American citizens is not required. "[/color]UNITED STATES CITIZENS[color=#000000] — The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."[/color]

Read more: http://articles.busi...s#ixzz1kQoVhltI

[Catamount]

STi, on 24 January 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

You're right, but people are thinking about the future. The majority of the opposition doesn't actually care about real war-time detainee's lol

I'd say this is probably prettly close to my position.


Honestly, let's be honest, this will NEVER be used against and American citizen, because the moment that came out, it would be political suicide for anyone involved, and the backlash of public opinion against almost any sort of intelligence activity would just be ungodly. No one is that foolish. I don't think there's a scandal in history that would begin to compare to the political ****-storm that would invoke.

At the same time, it's not really right to be withholding rights from anyone, citizen or not. The above video is basically right there; The Constitution's guarantees are supposed to apply to anyone in our custody.


That said, it seems to me the problem here is more in the precedent is sets, the the attitudes behind it, not a fear that this will spontaneously and unilaterally transform the entire nation into some sort of prison state, because that's just silly

My rights are as intact today as they ever were as far as I know; there's an issue here, but that's not it.

Edited by Catamount, 24 January 2012 - 06:07 PM.

[Listless Nomad]

Vulpesveritas, on 24 January 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

[color=#000000]Section 1022 continues that detaining American citizens is not required. "[/color]UNITED STATES CITIZENS[color=#000000] — The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."[/color]

Read more: http://articles.busi...s#ixzz1kQoVhltI

I'm failing to see a point in that post. Perhaps it was lost in the unfortunate color formatting.

[Stone Profit]

Brother Grim, on 24 January 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

The military police cannot act with imputinty, especially against civillian targets. General Dempsey has more to fear from MPs than the average Joe on the street. What you fail to mention about the NDAA is that it has heavily slashed funding for the military, most of those cuts focused against the Marines and the Army. The Army alone is set to lose ~50,000 soldiers as it reduces size to fit the new budget constraints. Yes, most of those positions being lost are combat arms, but there will still be cuts across the board, and the only people in the military authorised to detain individuals outside of a combat zone are MPs. This is all fearmongering as Stone said, although I wouldn't say it's quite as bad as it was in Germany

1960's McCarthyism? :-) Perhaps that is a less extreme (arguably not by much depending on your view) example?

[Catamount]

While we're on the topic, why doesn't color formatting work here?
I've tried several times to get it to work, always without success.

[pinsndneedles]

STi, on 24 January 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

You're right, but people are thinking about the future. The majority of the opposition doesn't actually care about real war-time detainee's lol

The future isn't going to be conflict necessarily however. This isn't Warhammer 40,000, there's more than war to life. What the opposition is ignoring is this

Listless Nomad, on 24 January 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

(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.

US citizens and residents will still be treated as civillians, and thus not subject to military jurisdiction unless there is substantial proof of them actively engaging in terrorist activities. Even then, the US military is not a domestic police force, it is a war making entity. The existing structures of the FBI, state and local law enforcement will pursue anyone flagged as a terrorist. Not to mention that the parts everyone has concern about will end as soon as the country is no longer in a state of war (read: ~2014).

[Vulpesveritas]

Catamount, on 24 January 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

I'd say this is probably prettly close to my position.


Honestly, let's be honest, this will NEVER be used against and American citizen, because the moment that came out, it would be political suicide for anyone involved, and the backlash of public opinion against almost any sort of intelligence activity would just be ungodly. No one is that foolish. I don't think there's a scandal in history that would begin to compare to the political ****-storm that would invoke.

At the same time, it's not really right to be withholding rights from anyone, citizen or not. The above video is basically right there; The Constitution's guarantees are supposed to apply to anyone in our custody.


That said, it seems to me the problem here is more in the precedent is sets, the the attitudes behind it, not a fear that this will spontaneously and unilaterally transform the entire nation into some sort of prison state, because that's just silly

My rights are as intact today as they ever were as far as I know; there's an issue here, but that's not it.

So the various FEMA camps around the USA, combined with this, doesn't concern you in the least? And even if it were political suicide, what about years in the future? It is the case of a frog in a pot- if the heat is turned up slowly, the frog won't know anything is wrong until it is too late.

[Catamount]

Stone Profit, on 24 January 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

1960's McCarthyism? :-) Perhaps that is a less extreme (arguably not by much depending on your view) example?

The problem is that it's again on the wrong side of hysteria, because that was also more about expanding government powers in fear of foreign attack (or more influence in that case), not fear of government powers.

Honestly the last time we had any fears of this exact type that I can think of would either by 1960s anti-Vietnam type stuff, or early-nation stuff like the Quartering Act by the British, or the Alien and Sedition Acts.


There really haven't been that many times in our history of great fear specifically of government military/police powers.

[Ryokens leap]

yikes

[Catamount]

Vulpesveritas, on 24 January 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

what about years in the future? It is the case of a frog in a pot- if the heat is turned up slowly, the frog won't know anything is wrong until it is too late.

I at least partly agree with you there, but that fear is something that, if legitimate, goes way back before the FY2012 NDAA.


Frankly, I'm much more concerned about the apparent powers we've already acted on, especially in regards to accused foreign combatants.

Edited by Catamount, 24 January 2012 - 06:15 PM.

[Stone Profit]

j

Catamount, on 24 January 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

The problem is that it's again on the wrong side of hysteria, because that was also more about expanding government powers in fear of foreign attack (or more influence in that case), not fear of government powers. Honestly the last time we had any fears of this exact type that I can think of would either by 1960s anti-Vietnam type stuff, or early-nation stuff like the Quartering Act by the British, or the Alien and Sedition Acts. There really haven't been that many times in our history of great fear specifically of government military/police powers.

I never said they were the same. Im giving other examples of fearmongering in general. Use your brain man

[Listless Nomad]

I'll tell you Vulpes what it means. This is the first part of section 1022.

Quote

(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 1021 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al- Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co- ordination 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.

I'll break it down piece by piece.

Quote

N 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)...

^-- If you are captured in war by the military

Quote

...in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

^-- The military is going to hold you until they figure out what you are.

If you are found:

Quote

to be a member of, or part of, al- Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co- ordination 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

The military is going to hold you. That is what 1022 says.

The part you quoted:

Quote

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.

- says that if you are a United States Citizen - the civies can hold you. That's all.

Here's a hint. Don't travel to afghanistan and throw a grenade at NATO troops. If you can manage to avoid that then nothing in either section applies to you if you are a US citizen. Stop listening to Fox news - stop picking out one word from sections and read the whole thing in context. These laws are structured in a certain way for a reason.

Edited by Listless Nomad, 24 January 2012 - 06:25 PM.

[Catamount]

Stone Profit, on 24 January 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

I never said they were the same. Im giving other examples of fearmongering in general. Use your brain man

I think pointing out a false analogy fallacy is using my brain


Basically, if you're accusing someone of fearmongering, you're saying their fears are unwarranted, and if you're using a historical example to support that thesis, then it has to be an example showing that the same kinds of fears have previously proved either unecessary or prone to create bad consequences (otherwise the example fails to suppor said thesis), which you can't do bringing up examples that don't relate to the topic at hand.


It's just a little friendly advice

Edited by Catamount, 24 January 2012 - 06:26 PM.

[Catamount]

Also, I admit that my knowledge of the particular act in question is definitely limited (frankly, I have other things in politics that are my job to be focused on), and with that admitted, it seems to me that Listless Nomad is definitely making his case.

I, for one, definitely appreciate the explanation.

[Stone Profit]

Catamount, on 24 January 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

I think pointing out a false analogy fallacy is using my brain


Basically, if you're accusing someone of fearmongering, you're saying their fears are unwarranted, and if you're using a historical example to support that thesis, then it has to be an example showing that the same kinds of fears have previously proved either unecessary or prone to create bad consequences (otherwise the example fails to suppor said thesis), which you can't do bringing up examples that don't relate to the topic at hand.


It's just a little friendly advice

You are mistaken. Fearmongering is an attempt to make people afraid when they should not be by omitting important details.. I also said they were no better than those examples,. I in no way said they were analagous. Perhaps you need to return to college english class to refresh your reading comprehension skills before you try to call someone out by for something they never said. But feel free go be a troll all you want, it doesnt make you right.

Just a little unfriendly advice to one who cant be bothered to get his facts straight.

Edited by Stone Profit, 24 January 2012 - 06:41 PM.

[Listless Nomad]

Catamount, on 24 January 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

Also, I admit that my knowledge of the particular act in question is definitely limited (frankly, I have other things in politics that are my job to be focused on), and with that admitted, it seems to me that Listless Nomad is definitely making his case.

I, for one, definitely appreciate the explanation.

Thanks Catamount. To be honest I just want to inform people. I hate when things are taken out of context and turned into things they're not. I'm all for keeping an eye on the government - and speaking up if necessary. I did the research on this - and I have to say it seems like things are being turned around. I'm no lawyer, and I welcome someone to come and reason with me about how my interpretation is wrong, but nowhere in there did I see anything that gives the military carte blanch to assassinate americans for protesting. I do not think Vulpes is doing it intentionally - but some of his posts here could be construed as fear mongering due to a lack of understanding of the material. Anonymous is not some benevolent enterprise. They are anarchists - and anarchists look out for themselves and their own interests - by their very definition. Just think about that next time they try to stir you to some noble cause.

Edited by Listless Nomad, 24 January 2012 - 06:35 PM.