• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bill 1867

Nosi

Illuminator
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
3,164
Bill 1867 passed.

This sucker's causing a mess. According to members of my family, it allows the US Military to arrest and hold US citizens without warrant if the government sees you as a threat. The OCCUPY movement is targeted.

Written by a concerned family member:

Bill 1867, the end of Freedoms and Rights in America. If you don't know what it says, look it up. Call your Congressperson, Senator, even the White House and tell them to kill this bill before your freedoms and rights are gone and you're sitting in a cell with no charges, no rights, no sentence just because our government deems you a "threat". Think it won't or can't happen? Wake up and pull your head out of your ass, it is happening right now! Courtesy of your local greedy politician and corporate entity! Say goodbye "Occupy"...you have a target on your back and the govt. is going to send the military to clean you off the streets! Wake up, people!

Please forgive my writing today, my hands are hurting.
 
That's the normal yearly Defense budget bill isn't it? Either way, it is massive, can you direct us to the specific part in question?
 
No reputable news source is interpreting the military spending bill this way. Snopes.Com calls this rumor unconfirmed.

I'd view this story a bit askance until more dependable sources weigh in.
 
I skimmed the bill as attached, and didn't see anything particularly insidious. What section is troublesome?
 
Here's the offending section:

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(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 1031 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.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
(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.
(c) Implementation Procedures-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

I'm not particularly concerned; the language already requires a military action taken under our existing rules for authorizing military force, and a detainee that attacked or planned an attack against the United States or some other country.

In other words, this is limited to Law of War situations, not police matters or domestic squabbles.
 
And there appears to be specific action required to be taken to put this into place. The time to get one's knickers in a knot is presumably when the secretary of state presents the request to Congress to enact the provision.

Just speculating, but I would expect that buried in US law somewhere, a similar statute already exists to deal with matters of national security / emergency issues.
 
Well, unless civil disobediance can be construed to be "an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners"

and the War on Poverty, or on Drugs, or on Terrorism can be determined to be war as defined in "Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40)"

or if "The Secretary of Defense ..., in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence" determines he wants to invoke this.

The escape clause for normal people in the US should be part (b), but I'm not sure what the word "requirement" means in "UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." Does that mean that citizens are unaffected and unarrestable by this law?
 
Last edited:
The escape clause for normal people in the US should be part (b), but I'm not sure what the word "requirement" means in "UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." Does that mean that citizens are unaffected and unarrestable by this law?

No, it's saying that if you have a U.S. citizen or lawful U.S. alien, you don't have to use military custody (implying, for instance, that you could use police custody instead).
 
The escape is that military force is NEVER authorized within the U.S.A.

So folks are getting their knickers in a knot over something that would only happen on foreign soil- like a citizen fighting for Al Quaida in Afghanistan. Though I'm not sure of the necessity, since a citizen as described would be a traitor- oops, only holds in a declared war? So maybe there is a point ?
 
The crucial bit is:

The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031

And if you read section 1031 it explicitly states:

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.

So no, it doesn't do what some people are claiming it does.
 
No, it's saying that if you have a U.S. citizen or lawful U.S. alien, you don't have to use military custody (implying, for instance, that you could use police custody instead).



1032 isn't actually the contentious section. That relates only to mandatory military detention. It's 1031 that's the problematic section

"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."

And this section explicitly states that it doesn't affect existing laws relating to arrest and detention inside the US.
 
Anyone looked into seeing if this is -new-?
Or is it just part of a procedure that has been approved in the past,with the same provisions?
 
1032 isn't actually the contentious section. That relates only to mandatory military detention. It's 1031 that's the problematic section.

When I Googled the hubbub, it was Section 1032 that people kept mentioning.

Anyway, if you think the hubbub is around Section 1031, could you please do us the courtesy of citing it here?
 
When I Googled the hubbub, it was Section 1032 that people kept mentioning.

Anyway, if you think the hubbub is around Section 1031, could you please do us the courtesy of citing it here?


You can read the complete bill here.

Title X, Subtitle D is the one that relates to 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) 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.

(f) 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).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(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 1031 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.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(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.

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.


Most people discussing this bill don't appear to have actually read it, or if they have, they don't understand it. Section 1031 provides the circumstances under which the US military is allowed to detain people. Section 1032 provides circumstances under which the military is required to detain people.

Section 1032 further clarifies that those people who the military is required to detain is a subset of those it is allowed to detain.

It is important to understand these two sections together, because they're directly inter-related.

Part (e) of 1031 makes it clear that authorisation to detail people in no way changes existing law with regard to arrest and detention within the USA. That's the first aspect by which the alarm bells are being rung falsely.

Part (b) of 1032 likewise excludes application of the Section to US Citizens or US residents inside the USA.
 
No reputable news source is interpreting the military spending bill this way. ...
That's not true. I've heard the mainstream news report on concerns that US citizens can be held by the military outside the US legal system. This is the first I heard there was more than one way to interpret the bill.

Maybe the media is not freaking out over it, but it has been reported and I found the reports were that the bill represented a continuing disturbing trend.
 
You can read the complete bill here.

Title X, Subtitle D is the one that relates to Detainee Matters.




Most people discussing this bill don't appear to have actually read it, or if they have, they don't understand it. Section 1031 provides the circumstances under which the US military is allowed to detain people. Section 1032 provides circumstances under which the military is required to detain people.

Section 1032 further clarifies that those people who the military is required to detain is a subset of those it is allowed to detain.

It is important to understand these two sections together, because they're directly inter-related.

Part (e) of 1031 makes it clear that authorisation to detail people in no way changes existing law with regard to arrest and detention within the USA. That's the first aspect by which the alarm bells are being rung falsely.

Part (b) of 1032 likewise excludes application of the Section to US Citizens or US residents inside the USA.
The problem comes when the military functions become blurred with law enforcement functions.
 
Written by a concerned family member:
If your family member is one of the people who write those hyperventilating political e-mail forwards that everyone else suffers from, please tell him/her to stop.
 
Are you sure about that? If Cuba were to land a battalion of infantry in Florida, the US would be limited to a law enforcement response?
I think you are referring to Posse Comitatus:

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies from using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land.
The highlighted part is key. Repelling an invasion would not be a law enforcement action.
 

Back
Top Bottom