The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

General Discussion Topics

Petition to IMPEACH ALL Senators who Voted for "U.S. is a Ba

The Black Vault Message Forums has a considerable number of niche forums to place your post. If you can not find a home for it, and the topic doesn't fit anywhere else, then post it here.

Postby Wing-Zero » Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:45 pm

katsung47 wrote:Congress Approves Provisions for Indefinite Arrests and Detention of US Citizens


U.S. citizens? Did they rewrite the bill? Because if they didn't then there's nothing in there that says U.S. citizens can be indefinitely detained, as we've established in two separate threads.
War is an extension of economics and diplomacy through other means.

Economics and diplomacy are methods of securing resources used by humans.

Securing resources is the one necessary behavior for all living things.

War = Life
User avatar
Wing-Zero
 
Posts: 3240
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: California Uber Alles

Postby katsung47 » Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:53 pm

Try to confuse people?

ACLUs statement regarding that section ^^


“Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so. But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

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.

http://www.unforumzed.com/showthread.ph ... ica./page3
katsung47
 
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:59 am

Postby Wing-Zero » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:45 pm

COVERED PERSONS

As defined in SEC. 1032., US Citizens are not covered persons and do not apply to detaining indefinitely without trial.
War is an extension of economics and diplomacy through other means.

Economics and diplomacy are methods of securing resources used by humans.

Securing resources is the one necessary behavior for all living things.

War = Life
User avatar
Wing-Zero
 
Posts: 3240
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: California Uber Alles

Postby The_Joker » Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:12 pm

Out of curiosity I looked at the link for the petition and I don't think it will work.

If American law is anything like Australian Law at all many of the petitions raised never see the light of day in so far as petitions being accepted in a "Legal" format.

I say this because in Australia there is one phrase on petitions that must be placed in the document for any petition against a Government (State or Federal) which is not in the thousands of petitions that are raised every year.

The phrase is: "It is the will of the following people that"

Additionally, The full name and address of the petitioners (the signed) must include their full name and address as it appears on the electoral role.

The reasons for the name and address is so that the people can be properly identified as citizens with the right to vote.

Anonymous persons on e-petitions or e-petitions are not counted as they can not be verified and rarely (meaning never)are e-petitions accepted.

I do not sign petitions unless they carry the phrase I mentioned as I believe they are used for purposes other than what the petition is about.

Maybe you guys should look into "My Will" as it pertains to getting politicians to do what they were elected to do..The will of the people. As I type this, I am getting an overwhelming feeling that what I have said applies to America as well as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, England et al.
Remember remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason why gunpowder, treason
Should ever be forgot...
User avatar
The_Joker
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:22 pm

Postby katsung47 » Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:32 pm

Wing-Zero wrote:COVERED PERSONS

As defined in SEC. 1032., US Citizens are not covered persons and do not apply to detaining indefinitely without trial.


ACLUs statement regarding that section ^^


“Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so. But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

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.

http://www.unforumzed.com/showthread.ph ... ica./page3
katsung47
 
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:59 am

Postby Wing-Zero » Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:50 pm

Yes, I saw the previous post.

but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill).


Once again, I reiterate - COVERED PERSONS. You can take a gander at SEC. 1031. and see for yourself that it states numerously that the things in the bill only apply to covered persons (and also points to sub-section b in SEC. 1032. to tell you who does OR DOESN'T fall under "Covered Persons".)

The evidence isn't there that it allows for indefinite detention of American citizens. Even if it did, numerous Supreme Court cases AND the 6th Amendment would be shoved in there so damn quick it would probably be considered an NC-17 rating.
War is an extension of economics and diplomacy through other means.

Economics and diplomacy are methods of securing resources used by humans.

Securing resources is the one necessary behavior for all living things.

War = Life
User avatar
Wing-Zero
 
Posts: 3240
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: California Uber Alles

Postby Guest » Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:04 pm

Wing-Zero wrote:Yes, I saw the previous post.

but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill).


Once again, I reiterate - COVERED PERSONS. You can take a gander at SEC. 1031. and see for yourself that it states numerously that the things in the bill only apply to covered persons (and also points to sub-section b in SEC. 1032. to tell you who does OR DOESN'T fall under "Covered Persons".)

The evidence isn't there that it allows for indefinite detention of American citizens. Even if it did, numerous Supreme Court cases AND the 6th Amendment would be shoved in there so damn quick it would probably be considered an NC-17 rating.


What is a belligerent act? Is peacefully protesting a belligerent act? How about posting an article critiquing the president or congress? Who decides that? When politicians make statements calling these people and their movements "belligerent", it certainly makes one wonder.
Guest
 

Postby Wing-Zero » Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:11 pm

Rykuss wrote:What is a belligerent act? Is peacefully protesting a belligerent act? How about posting an article critiquing the president or congress? Who decides that? When politicians make statements calling these people and their movements "belligerent", it certainly makes one wonder.


No doubt. I'm not supporting the bill. Even though it doesn't specifically say anything concrete, I'm not blind to the fact that, if they could, a lot of politicians would like to put us under lock-and-key. I don't understand why any of this is in a bill that is supposedly only alive because it detailed the defense budget for 2012. Tacked on by sneaky pollies no doubt.

I'm of the opinion that a "belligerent act" is anything that may further be backed by the Patriot Act to label the accused of terrorism and be tried as a terrorist. While you would think through that route that it would then allow them to detain indef. the thing is that you're an American Citizen regardless. You're protected by numerous Supreme Court cases and the 6th amendment, and even if you did end up locked up like that they wouldn't be able to keep you long. Your story would make news, and a host of lawyers and human rights folks would be clawing at each other to get to you.

I digress, the bill has nothing concrete that allows the government to throw you into the dungeons in the name of His Majesty for God and Country. If there is, I'd be happy to be proven wrong through logic and discourse.
War is an extension of economics and diplomacy through other means.

Economics and diplomacy are methods of securing resources used by humans.

Securing resources is the one necessary behavior for all living things.

War = Life
User avatar
Wing-Zero
 
Posts: 3240
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: California Uber Alles

Postby katsung47 » Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:54 pm

Wing-Zero wrote:Yes, I saw the previous post.

but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill).


Once again, I reiterate - COVERED PERSONS. You can take a gander at SEC. 1031. and see for yourself that it states numerously that the things in the bill only apply to covered persons (and also points to sub-section b in SEC. 1032. to tell you who does OR DOESN'T fall under "Covered Persons".)

The evidence isn't there that it allows for indefinite detention of American citizens. Even if it did, numerous Supreme Court cases AND the 6th Amendment would be shoved in there so damn quick it would probably be considered an NC-17 rating.


Though you try to cheat people, Obama knew better what he signed. Tell me what he said that "his administration won't use that law" means?

Obama sued over indefinite detention and torture of Americans act
17 January, 2012, 02:28

US President Barack Obama is the target of a suit filed by Pulitzer Prize-winner Hedges, and the reasoning seems more than obvious to him. The decision to take the commander-in-chief to court comes as a response to President Obama’s December 31 signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, a legislation that allows the US military to detain American citizens indefinitely at off-site torture prisons like Guantanamo Bay.

Obama amended the NDAA with a signing statement on New Year's Eve, insisting that while the Act does indeed give him the power to detain his own citizens indefinitely without charge, that doesn’t mean he will do so. Specifically, Obama wrote that his administration “will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” Under another piece of legislation, however, the government is being granted the right to suspend citizenship of any American if the Enemy Expatriation Act joins the ranks of the NDAA as an atrocious act approved by the president.

http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-hedges-ndaa-sued-933/
katsung47
 
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:59 am

Postby Guest » Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:46 pm

Several congressmen that supported this bill are under the impression that it does indeed include U.S. citizens, have said that was their intention and they wished the bill went further. It's all there on CSPAN and linked on youtube for all to see. Maybe I could sort through my web history and pull up such a video I watched just last night.
Guest
 

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion Topics

cron
  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 5 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 5 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests