http://www.infowars.com/...e-kill-american-citizens/

I will post a few more sources.

http://www.allgov.com/...cans_without_Trial_111129

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2813837/posts

http://www.thenewamerican.com/...zens-without-charge-trial

one link to the other side of the story

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/...ot-apply-to-u-s-citizens/

3 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.

(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.

No need to worry US citizens, this seems to be a story pumped up by the ACLU. This does not apply to US citizens or even legal aliens.

I read the act.

s.1031(d) clearly states that the section does not expand the powers of the president or the authorization of military force.


Thus... fear mongering.

It seems the article that Nuketon posted says the same thing I did.

Daniel, on November 29, 2011 at 1:00 am said:
Guys… this article is full of problems… running right over the issue that the words used here basically state that the government is not REQUIRED to detain you, but no where does it state that they “SHALL NOT” detain you. In legal terms there is a big difference. Sadly most americans seem to think that a law that says your NOT REQUIRED to do something, is the same as a law that says you SHALL NOT do it.
A King for example could write a law that says
“If a peasant hunts deer in my forest… I am Not Required to Behead him.”
If you went and hunted deer in his forest, the law he wrote simply says that he has a choice whether or not he beheads you. It doesn’t prevent him from doing so.
If the law said –
“If a peasant hunts deer in my forest… I SHALL NOT be permitted to behead them.”
The king would not be allowed to behead you. Of course he could drown you or crucify you instead I suppose to the non specificity of the statement… but I digress.
Here is the law as written in section 1032 that most idiots who think people like me are being paranoid need to learn how to read. .
1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—THE REQUIREMENTto detain a person in military custody under this section DOES NOT extend to citizens of the United States.
The Logic of this statement is translated as:
The Military is not REQUIRED to detain a US citizen. And when taken in the context of the rest of the document says that the ultimate discretion of what to do with someone was up to the military.
Because if the law said that the military was REQUIRED to detain you, that would actually be more limiting!
In other words this law is a BLANK CHECK and open to abuse.
In order for this section to protect the us citizen it would have to reference the 6th amendment to even be considered legal and lawful.
For example –
1) United States Citizen – United states Citizens SHALL NOT be detained under any circumstances which violate the rights listed in the US constitution, especially under the 6th, 7th and 8th amendments of the constitution.
Under the 6th amendment you may not be detained indefinitely without due process and a right to defend yourself. Under the clauses of 1031 – 1032 and other parts of the bill a citizen may be detained indefinitely without a trial.
When you combine this tripe with Rex84 you can see why some knuckleheads are scared.
I find this article to be biased and uninformed and I am offended at the inference that somehow only liberals or libertarians somehow see a problem with this bill… As if being liberal or Libertarian makes you stupid and gullible.
People need to WAKE UP before it’s too late.

Have you ever heard of the rules of statutory interpretation?

The poster of that quote refers to them when referencing "shall not" vs something such as "not required". However, he fails to apply an important aspect of the rules, which is that language needs to be interpreted within the context of: the section; division; Act, and their intent.

The name of the section is "1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY" and as such the language "the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section" takes on a completely different interpretation. It will be considered a reference to the section and its intent entirely.

One also does NOT have to reference the bill of rights in order for it to apply. The constitution applies to everything, in all circumstances. It is the rules by which other rules can be made, and is not subject to exemptions prescribed through other legislation.

When statute refers specifically to other acts it is usually to apply a section of that act without having to rewrite it. For example the collection provisions for one tax may be referred to in another tax act, simply to make the second tax act shorter by referring to definitions and sections that already exist elsewhere.

Other acts are also referenced in order to better ensure that the language will be interpreted the way you want it to be interpreted. If a certain interpretation already stands for a definition in one act, and you want that same interpretation to apply to what is being created now, then you reference it.

There is no need to do this with the constitution. It scrutinizes all aspects of all legislation by default.

This guy is clearly a fool :P

the issue is that the legislature isn't required to pass laws that are constitutional because the courts aren't required to uphold a law that violates the constitution. but some people will obey the illegal laws that are passed simply because it's a law.

course, the legislators shouldn't be running around passing those kind of laws...

not that i care. i'm probably ignorant of 99% of the laws that exist and don't do anything special to avoid getting dragged down to jail.

OMG EVERYONE PANIC!!1111oneoneon1!!11!!1!!!elventy!!!

Agreed with H4. That Daniel guy is not making the proper analogies. The language use is very different.

This shouldn't shock anyone.

1st amendment? Gone. If you had any doubt, the complete lack of prosecution of the UC cops should prove it to you.
2nd amendment? Gone. You don't need a permit to exercise a right.

Judge Napolitano nails it: http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1301578958001/

Dont like the US?

Move to Canada!

Um, folks - just because somebody spends the time to draft a Bill in no way implies or even suggests that it has a snowballs chance in hell of ever passing or becoming law. Lots of bills get drafted simply as political statements. I'm not losing any sleep over this little piece of fear mongering.

Well its included in the Defense Bill the Senate just passed, O'bummer claims he'll veto it... Though I suspect this will be one of those Change momemnts he claimed in his campaign and he'll change his mind and sign it.

meh

it passed 93-7

thus it would be veto overridden.

This is an outrageous assault on our civil liberties! This cannot be allowed to stand! Totally unconstitutional! That damn Bush and his so-called 'patriot act' must be stopped!

Wait... OBAMA and the DEMOCRAT ADMINISTRATION authored this...

Sorry. I misspoke before. This is a necessary tool in the war -er... police operations- on terror. This administration would never abuse such power and only asked for this law to deal with the gravest threats to our national survival.

we are f*cked!

interesting

We are currently fighting the war on terror which is not winnable; thus it is perpetual. When you live in a state of permanent war your civil liberties are eroded. Corporate influence on legislation in the US only increased. In 2011, 69% of the Pentagon's budget was outsourced to private companies. The US currently has 75,000 troops in Afghanistan and over 200,000 private contractors. We are also privatizing our penal system, making it more profitable with more prisoners, and our education system, making it more profitable by increasing class sizes. Many things should not be privatized.

I asked a few people how they felt about the outsourcing of our military and the most common response was "who cares". This disgusted me and I decided I would post up a political article here on the boards. Unfortunately, it was very poor information. H4 and Dibs corrected my error. The bill (S1867) as passed safeguards the rights of US residents at home and to a lesser extent those of permanent residents living in the US. The amendment proposed was to have a super-committee add in the wording of section 1032 at a later date (the section that safeguards US citizens and permanent residents). The article posted by a member of the ACLU was incorrect and I should have verified the wording of the bill myself.