That says it all right there. The war has come home. The battlefield is in your backyard. You are an enemy combatant.But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States.
Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, are equipped to make decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Perhaps the most troubling power grab of late is the mission creep associated with the 9/11 attacks and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Initiated as targeted strikes against the perpetrators of 9/11, a decade later we are still at war. With whom? Last week Congress passed a Defense Authorization bill with some very disturbing language that explicitly extends the president's war powers to just about anybody. Section 1034 of that bill states that we are at war with the Taliban, al Qaeda, and associated forces. Who are the associated forces? It also includes anyone who has supported hostilities in aid of an organization that substantially supports these associated forces. This authorization is not limited by geography, and it has no sunset provision. It doesn't matter if these associated forces are American citizens. Your constitutional rights no longer apply when the United States is "at war" with you. Would it be so hard for someone in the government to target a political enemy and connect them to al Qaeda, however tenuously, and have them declared an associated force?
My colleague Congressman Justin Amash spearheaded an effort to have this troubling language removed, but unfortunately it failed by a vote of 234 to 187. It is unfortunate indeed, that so many in Congress accept unlimited warmaking authority in the hands of the executive branch.[/FONT]
It's not like they're changing the rules mid-game. It's always been that way. If you were caught, you might be lucky enough to be tried and hanged. But there was no fundamental right to a trial, let alone a civilian one.But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States.
Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, are equipped to make decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.[/B]
Just like the patriot act wouldnt be used on American citizens, right Mike?The Bill passed at 8:20PM 12/1/11
The results are here:
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
I'll be outside watching for the black copters, tanks, and troop carriers to roll down my street.
Oh yeah....
Section 1032, exempting American Citizens, and legal Resident Aliens, from Military confinement under the terms of S 1867, is still in the Bill as I stated earlier.
The Bill passed at 8:20PM 12/1/11
The results are here:
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
I'll be outside watching for the black copters, tanks, and troop carriers to roll down my street.
Oh yeah....
Section 1032, exempting American Citizens, and legal Resident Aliens, from Military confinement under the terms of S 1867, is still in the Bill as I stated earlier.
I noticed that nobody answered my previous question.
That exemption only applies to section 1032. What about section 1031?
Section 1031 Subsection D states;
- (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.
[/LIST]Then what is the purpose of section 1031?
All good points and it also looks like they provided a clause for congressional oversight in subsection (e) of 1031.OK, here's Subsection B and C;
- (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows: This limits the scope of the Bill to a narrowly defined group of people 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.ONLY those who were involved in the planning, and/or execution of the 911 attacks.
- OR
- (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. ONLY al Qaeda, Taliban members, and those who gave them support and aid, in the 911 attacks, or subsequent attacks, against U.S. troops. (Remember this is a Military Appropriations Bill)
- (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. This is merely affirmation of the long standing rules of war that allow us to maintain custody of enemy combatants until the war is declared over.
- (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)). This takes away the ability of the POTUS to have captured combatants tried in Civilian Courts. (Which, BTW, is a primary reason that Obama is threatening to veto the bill.)
- (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. This allows trial by Military Tribunal for captured combatants.
- (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. This allows the U.S. to ship the captured combatants home for trial there, or turn them over to another country having venue.
That's not surprising given the fact that "O", and other Presidents, like to have things done their way without the bother of Congressional approval.All good points and it also looks like they provided a clause for congressional oversight in subsection (e) of 1031.
(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).
OK, here's Subsection B and C;
- (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows: This limits the scope of the Bill to a narrowly defined group of people 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.ONLY those who were involved in the planning, and/or execution of the 911 attacks.
- OR
- (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. ONLY al Qaeda, Taliban members, and those who gave them support and aid, in the 911 attacks, or subsequent attacks, against U.S. troops. (Remember this is a Military Appropriations Bill)
- (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. This is merely affirmation of the long standing rules of war that allow us to maintain custody of enemy combatants until the war is declared over.
- (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)). This takes away the ability of the POTUS to have captured combatants tried in Civilian Courts. (Which, BTW, is a primary reason that Obama is threatening to veto the bill.)
- (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. This allows trial by Military Tribunal for captured combatants.
- (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. This allows the U.S. to ship the captured combatants home for trial there, or turn them over to another country having venue.
It's pretty much the same as the espionage laws.So all of this can be applied to U.S. citizens? Why specifically exclude U.S. citizens in section 1032 but not in section 1031?