U.S. Military to go after U.S. Citizens? S-1867

[First Coast Tea Party]

 

 

Dear Billie,
 
 
Today, the Senator’s office received many emails and phone calls voicing concerns over the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.  There have been many assertions made about these provisions, some of which could not be further from the truth.  It just so happens these outlandish accusations are from the ACLU and their allies in Congress.
 
 
First off, this bill does not allow the US military to supplant your local police department in carrying out typical law enforcement activities.  Section 1031 only affirms the authority that the president currently has to detain certain people pursuant to the current military force authorization; in fact, this bill says that nothing in this section is intended to expand the president’s power.  In addition, in reaffirming the president’s authority to detain people, this section specifically limits the people who can be detained under this act to only those people who planned or helped carry out the 9/11 attacks on the United States or people who are a member of or substantially support Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that fighting against the US and its coalition partners.  Simply put, you need to be involved with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or one of its surrogates and you have to make a deliberate act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror to be detained under this act.
 
 
Section 1032 of this bill deals with the requirements that are needed for the U.S. military to hold people in custody.  This portion of the act differs from section 1031 in that this section deals with a much more select group of people that must be detained by the U.S. Military.  Any person detained under the authority of Section 1032 must be a member or part of Al-Qaeda or an associated force AND they must have participated in the planning or execution of an attack against the US or our coalition partners.  In addition, this section of the act has a limiting clause that specifically states that the military detention requirement does not extend to US citizens or lawful permanent residents.
 
 
I want to thank you all for reaching out to the office to voice your concerns on this bill.  I want to assure you that Senator Rubio and his staff always have, and always will, listen to your concerns and address them in a timely fashion.
 
 
The Senator has proposed 2 Amendments to prevent the President from transferring foreign terrorists to the U.S. to be prosecuted in the federal court system. However, in regard to the idea that this bill allows the U.S. military to supplant our local police departments and detain otherwise law abiding citizens for purchasing gold or guns is unfounded.  Those types of measures are not included in this bill; moreover, the Senator would never support them.  If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me.
 
 
Please find the text of Section 1031 and 1032 below.
 
 
Sincerely Yours,
J.R.
 
J.R. Sanchez
Director of Outreach
Office of United States Senator Marco Rubio
Hart 317
Washington DC 20510
202-224-3041

 
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) 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.
 
 
S-1867   http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c1122nzrBD:e46...:

 

U.S. Code Title 10 Chapter 47A    http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C47A.txt

 

Title XVIII Public Law 111-84      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:6:./temp/~c111ljjjRh:e12...:

 

Public Law 107-40   http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:3:./temp/~c107Fvd7l7::
 
 
 
 
 
 

[Steve Tikas]

Yeah I know they used to duel over fights and honestly I sometimes wish that things were simple like that today.  Now-a-day everything is made to be so complex even when it is something very simple.

 

Yes you are right I know that if I do decide to get into politics I need to get ready for the proverbial poop-storm.  If/when I do run I'll have to prepare my family for what is to come and my kids to hear some stuff about myself and my wife that might not be very nice. 

 

If/when I run I'm just going to be honest with people and tell them the different things I have done wrong and hope that my ideas are enough to make up for the things I've done in the past.  I don't have anything really bad but there are plenty of things someone could bring up that I've done wrong.  Honestly in a few years I think people will be wanting someone that has ideas and convictions more then someone that is white as the driven snow.  Ron Paul's campaign shows how peoples views on things are changing. 

 

You are right she is not invincible (but it will be very difficult the 3rd district has not had anything but Democrats since its inception back in the early 1900's and is now broken up in a way to almost ensure a black person wins the district) and she has quite a few things that a good, well prepared candidate will be able to go after her about.  She has quite a few questionable things in her time in office that involve her daughter and her and the different things that she gets money for in different bills.  Then you have her positions on certain issues.  I've already been researching her by the way.  I do like your idea about talking to past opponents I had not thought about that.  I do have one advantage that most GOP candidates don't which is it will be very difficult to paint me as a racist.

[Barry Lee Phillips]

Steve,

Digging up dirt on the opposing candidate and engaging in the politics of personal destruction is nothing new in American politics.  If you recall your history, duels were once fought over this kind of thing.

If you are going to run for office, then you have to be prepared to deal with lies, slander and character assassination from people who have no scruples and are dishonest to the core.  In my view, people who engage in those kinds of activities are evil.  They wouldn't think they are evil, but they are.

The problem becomes one of how to counteract an attempt at political destruction.  If you fail to respond to lies and innuendos, then many voters will assume the charges are true.  That is because many voters are lazy and will not take the time to check the facts, find the truth and discount the lies.

If I were you, then I would study this issue well in advance of any campaign and find out what the best strategy is to counteract such tactics.  If you are going to run against Corrine Brown, contact the previous candidates and find out from them what worked or didn't work.

Corrine Brown is not invincible and she can be defeated if the right campaign strategy is found.

 

[Steve Tikas]

There are no such things as collective rights by themselves.  The only reason you can have a collective right is if the individuals that are part of the collective have the right.  Saying it is a collective right makes no sense if you say the individuals don't have the same rights that you are speaking about.

 

 

[Barry Lee Phillips]

Reposting the ACLU position on the 2nd Amendment:

"The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized."

[Barry Lee Phillips]

I don't think J.R. Sanchez is comparing the ACLU and the Tea Party.  He refers to the ACLU's allies in the statement to Billie.  The question is who are the allies of the ACLU?

According to the ACLU website, this is what they say about themselves which seems to be a sort of mission statement:

"The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

These rights include:

• Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
• Your right to equal protection under the law - protection against unlawful discrimination.
• Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
• Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

The ACLU also works to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including people of color; women; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; prisoners; and people with disabilities.

If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled."

There is a graphic display of nearly all the states on their web site which shows their affiliation with the Occupy movement.  For example, in Florida this information is displayed:

Occupy Activities

• In Tampa, monitoring the situation, giving advice to protesters, and negotiating informally with city leaders and the police department.
• In Tallahassee, local Chapter provided advice and countered the city when it tried to require a liability insurance policy before the protestors would be allowed to assemble, resulting in the city backing down. Also successfully opposed the county when it told protestors that they would have to pay for additional police services for the protest.
• ACLU-FL Northeast Florida Regional Office and Northeast Florida Chapter on hand to provide protestor rights education and materials on the ground and online in Jacksonville, Gainesville, St. Augustine, Atlantic Beach and Jacksonville Beach. Facebook page providing links to various public education materials including protester's rights brochures, police stop cards, and Dissent Is Patriotic posters.
• Offered advice to protestors in Fort Meyers regarding liability insurance requirements and they subsequently filed a lawsuit against the city.

The Occupy movement is an ally based on the ACLU's focus on civil liberties.  Logically, it follows that if the Tea Party also supports 1st Amendment rights, as I am sure it does, then the Tea Party would be an ally of the ACLU.  But only in the sense that Tea Party members strongly believe in the Bill of Rights as part of the Constitution.

Ideologically, I suspect that most ACLU members and most Tea Party members are miles apart in their fundamental political beliefs.  However, here is an instance where a California Tea Party group joined the ACLU in a lawsuit back in June over a free speech issue and won:

http://www.reteaparty.com/2011/06/22/unlikely-pair-aclu-tea-party-w...

For all the bluster made by the ACLU about 1st Amendment rights, they do not support an individual right to bear arms.  This is where the ACLU and I part company.  Here is their position on the 2nd Amendment:

"The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C vs Heller. While the decision is a significa

[Steve Tikas]

Mr. Philips

 

You are right that it might take several election cycles to effect real change I just fear that we don't have a few election cycles before the irrational people decide to take to the streets.  Unfortunately something like that only takes a few people to start but can spread very quickly. 

 

You are right being an elected official is difficult with all of the money and high powered people around which can cause even the best person to pause for a second.  Another problem we have is the way elections are run.  By that I mean a lot of good people that do have the conviction to do the right thing won't run because of what would be said about them and their families during the election.  I will admit that is a fear of mine as well.  I plan to run for elected office in a couple of years (I'm hoping to take Mrs. Corrine Brown's seat from her) but I dread the personal attacks.  Not so much the ones directed towards me but the ones that might be directed towards my family.

 

Fear and anger are strong motivators and right now this country has a lot of both and I fear many are only one big event away from losing it.  I hope and pray daily that I'm wrong in my assumption but I'm just going off of what I see and hear from people in my daily life.

 

I don't think that things are ever hopeless and futile.  I have a saying that to my knowledge I came up with that sums it up.  "All hope is not lost until all lose hope."  I, like you, believe that we still have time but I also have my plans in case things get really bad.

[amanda choate]

Is Rubio comparing the Tea Party and the ACLU? Pretty broad brush stroke I'd say.

[Barry Lee Phillips]

Steve,

I agree with you, however, we must be careful not to let irrational fears and paranoia cloud rational thought.

You and I both know we can find all the moonbats we care to find on the left and the right who are irrational and paranoid.  Now is the time to work harder to get people elected who are going to put the country first instead of their personal ambition.  But the temptation is always there for good people to go off the reservation.

It takes a great deal of character and personal integrity to stay the course if one is elected to office in this day and time.  The only way things are going to change for the better is for this type of person to hold office.  It may take several election cycles for this kind of change to take place.  I think we all  realize we are in this fight for the long term.  But my concern is that we might run out of time to effect positive change.

Who can say when the time will come to stop talking and take action?  If you listen to the paranoids they will tell you it is already too late -- our goose is cooked and the chef is sharpening his knife.

I choose to believe the opposite, but I will always keep my powder dry.

[Steve Tikas]

Mr. Philips you said "Anti-American agitation or propaganda does not put citizens in gulags in this country -- YET." I think this bill and especially section 1031 will essentially do the same thing.  Anti-American agitation could be said to embolden the terrorist and give aid and comfort to the enemy which could put you at odds with the covered person described in section 1031.

 

Look at the progression of events a couple of years ago they had a report saying that Tea Party members, gun rights advocates, people who believe in states rights, etc could be labeled as an enemy of the state.  Then you have the killing of a US citizen.  Yes I agree a horrible one and one that I can't say I'm sad to see go but a US citizen none-the-less.  I don't say that to start a debate about this just to show the progression.  Now you have this.  (Yes I know there are a ton more events that would go in between but those are three major ones that always stick in my mind) They are getting bolder and bolder about blatant disregard of personal and civil liberties.  If you look at that mixed with what is going on in the Middle East as well as the EU you have a gigantic worldwide powder keg.  They are just putting the things in place to try and justify taking US citizens off to detention facilities when the powder keg explodes.

 

This will be followed by something worse and more blatant until people do something.  We have an easy way to do something now which is to vote someone into office that will fight against these types of violations of our civil liberties.  If we don't make the right choice now we miss a big chance to fix the problem.  After this it will be much more violent.  Before I get attacked I'm not saying I want that (I have a wife and three kids I don't want to have to live thru something like that) just that in reality that is what will probably happen.  Thomas Jefferson and his quote about the tree of liberty sometimes having to be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants (I know that wasn't the exact quote) comes to mind.

[Barry Lee Phillips]

Amanda,

Back in the day, even the U.S.S.R. required a "legal" means to act illegally.  The Communist elite made sure that crimes against the state were illegal.  For example, if a Soviet citizen committed a crime against the state, such as anti-Soviet agitation or propaganda, then it was likely that person would disappear in the middle of the night and end up in a gulag in which he or she might not survive.

Anti-American agitation or propaganda does not put citizens in gulags in this country -- YET.

That being said, all governments of whatever stripe need a veneer of legality to force their will upon the people whether the people accept it or not.

The one document that stands in the way of government control of citizens in this country is the Constitution of the United States.  However, the Constitution has been under increasing assault over many years from many factions. 

All elected representatives take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  It irritates me to no end that they do neither with few exceptions.  This has got to change.