steveh_131
Grandmaster
It's pretty much the same as the espionage laws.
For further information I suggest you contact your elected Representatives.
So you don't know?
It's pretty much the same as the espionage laws.
For further information I suggest you contact your elected Representatives.
I didn't say that.So you don't know?
I noticed that nobody answered my previous question.
That exemption only applies to section 1032. What about section 1031?
[/LIST]
Then what is the purpose of section 1031?
I'll try to take a shot at this. Sec. 1031 simply authorizes military custody. Sec. 1032 defines the requirements for that authorization of military custody.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?
I didn't say that.
You are inserting false premises into my statements.
That is being disingenuous.
I've stated the facts as I understand them.
I again refer you to your elected Officials for further clarification.
I'll try to take a shot at this. Sec. 1031 simply authorizes military custody. Sec. 1032 defines the requirements for that authorization of military custody.
Now lets take a look at Sec. 1032 and pay attention to subsections (a) and (b). Subsection (a) spells out Custody Pending the Disposition under Law of War and defers to Sec. 1031 to define the conditions. Subsection (b) deals with the Applicability to U.S. Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens as it pertains to Subsection (a). That seems to me to be the connection.
I agree that this bill is way to confusing and open to much interpretation especially considering it could have such potential to circumvent civil liberties.That makes a little more sense. Thanks.
The amendment (No. 1456) was agreed to. The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 1
Here is a link describing that amendment and some text of the debate that took place further down in the article and it provides some interesting insight on Sec.1031Feinstein Amendment No. 1456
(The 'compromise' amendment.)
On p 360, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
(e) 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.
Can Americans be indefinitely detained by the military on suspicion of terrorism if arrested on American soil? Thursday evening the Senate added a compromise amendment to the defense spending bill that states: Maybe. Specifically, it says the bill does not alter current authorities relating to detention, leaving either side free to argue whether current law allows or prohibits indefinite military detention of Americans captured in the US.
The reason the compromise amendment worked is that it leaves the question of domestic military detention open, leaving the matter for Supreme Court to resolve should a future president decide to assert the authority to detain a US citizen on American soil.
I think it would be disingenuous to interpret from this clip that McCain is advocating the use of predator drones on suspects inside the United States.All these Senators, including the authors of the bill, seem to think that this bill does apply to American citizens. McCain wants to be able to use Predator drones on suspects inside the United States.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7tavj7Jhko
If this actually is signed into law (not sure on it's exact status) then people should be worried. There is much talk about how the military wouldn't actually obey orders of this nature, but as shown on another thread, the rationale would be that such orders were in fact lawful and must be obeyed.
To be honest Rambone, I don't think you have anything to worry about if your not a terrorist.
Not to be antagonistic, but who says this is unconstitutional?When one swears into the military they swear to support and defend the constitution. This law is unconstitutional.
Looks like it's gonna become law now. Don't get caught aiding and abetting al-Qaeda.