mnealtx 0
Recommended Posts
QuoteQuoteMike - what do you think military custody is? That's called Posse Comitatus.
If you're arrested by the local PD, how is being held in a military jail a violation of comitatus?
This law defines the US as the battlefield. What the hell do you think that means, Mike? This is as bad as what FDR did to the Japanese in WWII. Internment on the basis of uncharged but perceived threat.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteMike - what do you think military custody is? That's called Posse Comitatus.
If you're arrested by the local PD, how is being held in a military jail a violation of comitatus?
This law defines the US as the battlefield. What the hell do you think that means, Mike?
Where does the bill authorize the military to act in the stead of law enforcement? Does being held in a military jail instead of a civilian one qualify as a comitatus violation?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteMike - what do you think military custody is? That's called Posse Comitatus.
If you're arrested by the local PD, how is being held in a military jail a violation of comitatus?
This law defines the US as the battlefield. What the hell do you think that means, Mike?
Where does the bill authorize the military to act in the stead of law enforcement? Does being held in a military jail instead of a civilian one qualify as a comitatus violation?
Mike - section 1032 of the Act describes that "the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities."
Read that carefully. Not "arrested." Not "booked." Not a person who got a Terry stop. "Captured."
Take a look at this, Mike. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c1124yPZGb::
Why is section 1031 not there? Seriously! It's referred to in the law. What happened to section 1031 in the bill as passed by the Senate?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
We might need some clarification on this bill. The Military Commissions Act 2009 excluded US citizens from Military custody, and allowed for Hab/corp, for US citizens apprehended inside the US. I did a fast read on this, so any light shedders comments would be welcome.
1032 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(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.
1032 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(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.
normiss 643
Yet everyone is ignoring this portion:
(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.
DOES NOT!!!! 
We're becoming Fox News.
HR1955 has died in committee every year since it was initially introduced in 2007. I'm wondering if there has been a blending of several bills in this discussion?
mnealtx 0
QuoteWhere does the bill authorize the military to act in the stead of law enforcement? Does being held in a military jail instead of a civilian one qualify as a comitatus violation?
Mike - section 1032 of the Act describes that "the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities."
Read that carefully. Not "arrested." Not "booked." Not a person who got a Terry stop. "Captured."
Sounds like they're not acting in the stead of law enforcement, then, and paragraph (b)(1) of the same section specifically exempts US citizens.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteYet everyone is ignoring this portion:
(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.
DOES NOT!!!!
We're becoming Fox News.
Mark:
Here’s the key language:
Quote(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.
We’ve got a statutory scheme that says people can be captured as enemy prisoners of war on battlefield US. There is no right to be charged or right to trial so long as there is an allegation that the EPW engaged in some substantial conduct in furtherance of the enemy. That person will be released so long as we are in a condition of conflict.
If the person is not a US Citizens, that person MUST be passed over to the military. Now tell me, Mark, is that the end of the story? It says a foreigner MUST be handed over to the military for imprisonment.
The rule does NOT say that a US Citizen shall not be. What the rule says is only that it is a requirement to do it for those who are not US Citizens. That means that it is discretionary whether a US citizen will be held permanently.
I’ll reiterate. Here’s the statute:
Quote(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.
Here’s what the statute does not say:
Quote(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- citizens of the United States shall not be subject to detention in military custody.
So to put it in short, the military is empowered to capture persons on US soil suspected of supporting terrorists and imprison them indefinitely without trial. US Non-citizens suspected of providing support to terrorists are required to be indefinitely detained by the military. US citizens may either be detained by the military or tried by civilian courts.
Discretion is vested to capture you and me and put us in a military prison with no hope of getting out. The Senate has REFUSED to change the statute to satisfy people like me who point out that discretion is there for military imprisonment.
"Required to do" and "Allowed to do" are different things. The statute only says that US citizens are not required to be put in military detention.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Interesting..... From WiKi.
Contrary to popular belief, the Posse Comitatus Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any orders to do so must originate with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.
The statute only addresses the US Army and the US Air Force. It does not refer to, and thus does not implicitly apply to nor restrict units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States. The Navy and Marine Corps are prohibited by a Department of Defense directive, (self-regulation,) not by the Act itself.[1][2] Although it is a military force,[3] the U.S. Coast Guard, which now operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is also not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act.
As of December 3, 2011, the Posse Comitatus Act is under threat of repeal from the National Defense Authorization Act.[4]
Contrary to popular belief, the Posse Comitatus Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any orders to do so must originate with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.
The statute only addresses the US Army and the US Air Force. It does not refer to, and thus does not implicitly apply to nor restrict units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States. The Navy and Marine Corps are prohibited by a Department of Defense directive, (self-regulation,) not by the Act itself.[1][2] Although it is a military force,[3] the U.S. Coast Guard, which now operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is also not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act.
As of December 3, 2011, the Posse Comitatus Act is under threat of repeal from the National Defense Authorization Act.[4]
Well, yes. That's long been the rule. Posse Comitatus is a statute that can be repealed or amended. It's not a Constitutional thing.
But it has been one of those laws that has been a hallmark for the prevention of a federal military state.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
But it has been one of those laws that has been a hallmark for the prevention of a federal military state.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Quote
Pretty obvious they're talking about something a bit more involved than shouting "America sucks", wouldn't you say?
Obvious? No. We can't go by "obvious". It's subjective.
Laws written in the subjective are often mis-applied according to the intent of the writer(s). Or, better yet, they get stricken.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
pirana 0
QuoteSparking the concern of Russian diplomats over the growing totalitarian bent of the Obama government is the planned reintroduction of what these reports call one of the most draconian laws ever introduced in a free society that is titled “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act”.
WTF
The LAME meter just exploded.
This is so fucking contrived. It is almost as bad as the assinine press releases that come from the worst of the Middle East hellholes. Where is the sentence mentioning running capitalist devil dogs?
The Soviets concerned with another countries totalitarian bent? Are they kidding?
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
QuoteQuote
Pretty obvious they're talking about something a bit more involved than shouting "America sucks", wouldn't you say?
Obvious? No. We can't go by "obvious". It's subjective.
Laws written in the subjective are often mis-applied according to the intent of the writer(s). Or, better yet, they get stricken.
Of course. Wiretapping statutes also could never be used for criminalizing taking video of police acting in public view.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteQuoteQuote
Pretty obvious they're talking about something a bit more involved than shouting "America sucks", wouldn't you say?
Obvious? No. We can't go by "obvious". It's subjective.
Laws written in the subjective are often mis-applied according to the intent of the writer(s). Or, better yet, they get stricken.
Of course. Wiretapping statutes also could never be used for criminalizing taking video of police acting in public view.
Exactly!
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
QuoteThe Soviets concerned with another countries totalitarian bent? Are they kidding?
Kinda like the U.S. being concerned with the theocratic bend of other countries?
Kinda like the U.S. being concerned with the communistic leanings of Cuba?
Kinda like the U.S. being concerned with the (fill in the blank) of other countries?
Shirley, I'm kidding, right?
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
QuoteWell, yes. That's long been the rule. Posse Comitatus is a statute that can be repealed or amended. It's not a Constitutional thing.
But it has been one of those laws that has been a hallmark for the prevention of a federal military state.
So...Obama backs off his threat of veto...
""The paradigm of the war on terror has advanced so far in people's minds that this has to appear more normal than it actually is," Malinowski said. "It wasn't asked for by any of the agencies on the frontlines in the fight against terrorism in the United States. It breaks with over 200 years of tradition in America against using the military in domestic affairs."
In fact, the heads of several security agencies, including the FBI, CIA, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general objected to the legislation. The Pentagon also said it was against the bill.
The FBI director, Robert Mueller, said he feared the law could compromise the bureau's ability to investigate terrorism because it would be more complicated to win co-operation from suspects held by the military.
"The possibility looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain co-operation from the persons in the past that we've been fairly successful in gaining," he told Congress.
Civil liberties groups say the FBI and federal courts have dealt with more than 400 alleged terrorism cases, including the successful prosecutions of Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber", Umar Farouk, the "underwear bomber", and Faisal Shahzad, the "Times Square bomber".
Elements of the law are so legally confusing, as well as being constitutionally questionable, that any detentions are almost certain to be challenged all the way to the supreme court.
Malinowski said "vague language" was deliberately included in the bill in order to get it passed. "The very lack of clarity is itself a problem. If people are confused about what it means, if people disagree about what it means, that in and of itself makes it bad law," he said."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I certainly hope not...I'm trying to understand the sense of the comitatus remarks.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites