[GPSCC-chat] Civil liberties? What civil liberties?

Sun Dec 18 10:12:03 PST 2011

Let's try that again.  This time I will actually go and read the law from the Congressional Record.  This is what I find:

From the Congressional Record, located here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-12-12/pdf/CREC-2011-12-12-pt1-PgH8356-5.pdf

From Section 1021SEC. 
1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE
ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED
STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION
FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE
(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.

[No mention is made in this section about exemptions for 
Citizens or resident aliens]

SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN ALQAEDA
TERRORISTS
(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.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in
paragraph (1) shall apply to any person
whose detention is authorized under section
1021 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda
or an associated force that acts in coordination
with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of
planning or carrying out an attack or attempted
attack against the United States or
its coalition partners.

(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.

[Note the title of this SECTION is "Military Custody
for foreign Alqaeda Terrorists", so of course
it doesn't apply to US Citizens or resident aliens, but Section 1021 
fails to specifically exempt Citizens and
resident aliens from its requirements.  It also looks like it is ok for my Mother to serve me Christmas dinner since I wasn't responsible for even aiding the Sept 11, 2011 attacks specifically, so harboring me (under 1021(b)(1) )won't be a specific crime under this section.  However, my actions as an activist who doesn't like drones could still be interpreted as "substantial support" for terrorism under this act (under Section 1021 (b) (2) ).]

So my conclusions and rehtoric remain unaltered from my rants of yesterday on Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere.  I also said that the freaks named Obama, Feinstein and Boxer need to be voted out of office at any cost, even if this means that they are replaced by clones of Michelle Bachmann whos' last elected offices were those of Dog Catcher.

John Thielking

From: John Thielking <pagesincolor at yahoo.com>
To: Wes Rolley <wrolley at charter.net>; "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org> 
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Civil liberties? What civil liberties?

So this means a continuation of the SOS, namely the rounding up of undocumented immigrants, only this time they can be detained indefinitely.  This is not any more acceptable than the previous interpretation.  So now the military may soon be patrolling the streets checking to see if you have a passport or birth certificate and if you don't (especially if you are brown) detaining you indefinitely or until they can sort out your citizenship status. I have heard that the error rate of ICE detaining lawfull residents is as high as 5%. We will have to see how this all shakes out.  I'm still sticking with the following slogan: "Since the pasage of NDAA 2012, the lesser of two evils argument has flown out the window and hit its head on the pavement.  Vote the two party system of the Green Party and the Peace and Fredom Party and nevermind the unintended consequences." 

From: Wes Rolley <wrolley at charter.net>
To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org 
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Civil liberties? What civil liberties?

The basis of my comments are these.

Renumbered... Section 1021 (e) reads...
(e) AUTHORITIES.—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.

Renumbered... Section 1022 (b) reads...
(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.

-- and --
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in
paragraph (1)shall apply to any person
whose detention is authorized under section
1021 who is determined—

Greenwald fails to consider that American Citizens and Resident Aliens are exempted from the provisions of 1021 and chooses instead to quibble about the meaning of the term "requirement'... sort of like whatthe meaning of "is" is. 

_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss

_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20111218/dcf99152/attachment.html>