[GPSCC-chat] S. 1867

[Gerry Gras]

Matthew Rothschild has an article about this:
"McCain says American Citizens Can Be Sent to Guantanamo"
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/30-4

NOTE: The Udall Amendment has been defeated.
About 12 Ds joined the Rs.  Only 1 R joined the Ds.

The text of the bill is at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c112:./temp/~c112Hb4Vbc
Section 1031 is about 55% of the way down the page.

Because "temp" is in the URL, maybe it is temporary.
So here is Section 1031, below.

========================

Subtitle D--Detainee Matters

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.

     (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.

     (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).

========================

Gerry



Gerry Gras wrote:
>
> When I read/hear statements about alleged problems with
> bills, I sometimes like to learn more about them.
>
> So when I heard there were serious problems with S. 1867,
> I did some internet searching, and ...
>
> FIRST, there may be a vote tomorrow (Monday) or the
> next day (Tuesday).
>
> SECOND, there are references to a section 1031,
> which I can't find in the text:
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:
> NOTE: I am not sure that clicking on that link will
> get you to the text, that might be a dynamic link.
> If not, then go to: http://thomas.loc.gov , select
> bill number, enter "s b 1867".
>
> It may (or may not) be that that section has already
> been removed.
>
> THIRD, this is yet another example of how poor a job
> the MSM is doing. My internet search did not find
> any MSM reporting on it.
>
> Finally, here are the highlights of what I found ...
>
> ============
>
> Here's a statement from the ACLU:
> http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being
>
>
> "Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a
> 'Battlefield' They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window"
>
> "The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John
> McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without
> even a single hearing."
>
> "The senators pushing the indefinite detention proposal have made their
> goals very clear that they want an okay for a worldwide military
> battlefield, that even extends to your hometown. That is an extreme
> position that will forever change our country."
>
> Here's their petition:
> https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA
>
>
> ===========
>
> The Udall Amendment is discussed here:
> http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1746
>
> ===========
>
>  From Amnesty International:
>
> http://blog.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/internment-in-the-us-not-on-our-watch/
>
>
> "The result is so insidious that the Chairs of the Intelligence and
> Judiciary Committees, who are at the heart of every key issue in the
> struggle against Al Qaeda, wrote an instant public response condemning
> the deal."
>
> (A petition)
> http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=6oJCLQPAJiJUG&b=6645049&aid=516711
>
>
> ===========
>
> Here's a statement from Human Rights First, an organization
> I am unfamiliar with:
>
> http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2011/11/16/defense-authorization-bill-compromise-sparks-sharp-opposition/
>
>
> "Defense Authorization Bill Compromise Sparks Sharp Opposition"
>
> "In the wake of yesterday’s announced Senate Armed Services Committee
> defense authorization compromise, Human Rights First is praising the
> Obama Administration and Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Dianne
> Feinstein (D-CA) for their forceful opposition to the proposal that
> would undermine national security and the rule of law."
>
> "Among other things, the defense bill would let the government imprison
> people without proof, indefinitely, merely on suspicion of criminality.
> Moreover, the bill would potentially eviscerate the crucial role of the
> FBI and local law enforcement in domestic counterterrorism operations by
> mandating military custody for a large category of terrorism suspects."
>
> ============
>
> Here's a statement from antiwar.com, a website I am not
> familiar with:
>
> http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2011/11/17/provision-shifting-terrorism-cases-to-military-domain-probably-wont-pass/
>
>
> "The original language, which a Senate panel approved in June, shifted
> the responsibility for trying all terrorism suspects to the U.S.
> military, as opposed to civilian courts. "
>
> =============
>
> Other links:
>
> http://info-wars.org/2011/11/26/us-senate-moves-to-allow-military-to-intern-americans-without-trial/
>
>
> http://www.congress.org/soapbox/alert/57366501
>
> http://www.allgov.com/Controversies/ViewNews/Vague_Wording_of_Senate_Defense_Bill_Called_Disaster_by_Amnesty_International_111121
>
>
>
> Gerry
>