anti-terrorist language in Defense bill??

This is a discussion on anti-terrorist language in Defense bill?? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; OK, in a thread that I started under "Off-topic" about two weeks ago, the subject was language in the Defense Appropriations bill that seemingly would ...

Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: anti-terrorist language in Defense bill??

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array Chaplain Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,681

    anti-terrorist language in Defense bill??

    OK, in a thread that I started under "Off-topic" about two weeks ago, the subject was language in the Defense Appropriations bill that seemingly would allow US citizens, classified as terrorists to be held without the right of habeus corpus by the military (or various versions of that concept). I saw some news article as late as last night that claimed that the language was still in the bill.

    Can any of you folks outthere in DC land shed any light on this subject (light, we need light, not necessarily heat ) I've been working 12 hour shifts in the hospital and have not had any chances to follow this issue.
    Scott, US Army 1974-2004

    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
    - Ronald Reagan

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    Here is the entire US defense appropriations law. For your reading enjoyment; go to page 359, Subtitle D, Detainee Matters, and read sections 1031-1037.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...12s1867pcs.pdf

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,624
    It is going to be signed. Big disappointment that Congress insisted on inserting the language and big disappointment that The President has agreed to sign the bill. Hope there is a strong signing statement declaring that section unconstitutional, but I doubtit. Thumbs down to all involved. This one will come back and bite us all in the backside.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    i hate working with PDF stuff. More:


    (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
    16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
    17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require
    18 ment to detain a person in military custody under
    19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
    20 States.

    21 (21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require
    22ment to detain a person in military custody under
    23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
    24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
    25 taking place within the United States, except to the
    1 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
    2 States.

  6. #5
    Ex Member Array gunther71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    greenville
    Posts
    159
    Make us all searchable..............what a joke! Watch hr822 pass the seante and get vetoed!

  7. #6
    Distinguished Member Array Chaplain Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,681
    Sig 210--thanks for posting the link and pointing the way to the right pages--glad I didn't have to search the WHOLE document

    Hopyard---just curious, what specifically makes you uneasy about this??
    Scott, US Army 1974-2004

    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
    - Ronald Reagan

  8. #7
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaplain Scott View Post
    Sig 210--thanks for posting the link and pointing the way to the right pages--glad I didn't have to search the WHOLE document

    Hopyard---just curious, what specifically makes you uneasy about this??
    It will, not withstanding the section removing a requirement as in post 4 be used against US Citizens, whether or not affiliated with Al Quaida since the threshold for that accusation is very low. The Mayfield case is illustrative.

    Moreover, the mere insertion of this provision goes totally counter to the entirety of the Bill of Rights.

    The Jose Padilla case is illustrative. He was seized from the midst of a Federal Court Proceeding, held incommunicado sans
    lawyer for about 5 years; denied his Habeus Rights; denied a civilian trial. ONLY after the case took a long series of turns through the various courts and was about to be heard by the Supremes (for the second time I think) did the Administration of the day suddenly have a change of heart and move the case to a civilian court. They did this per discussions of the time to prevent a defeat if the case was heard by the Supremes as Scalia was considered a conservative NO vote for what the administration was doing.

    IF TODAY they can say that suspicion of membership in Al Quida subjects you to being seized and dealt with outside of the normal court routines, tomorrow they can say that membership in the Bloods or the Crips is sufficient. THen they can say that
    support for or membership in almost anything is sufficient.

    This whole business is an end run around the Bill of Rights, based on an obscure and unique WWII espionage case which too could have been handled in a civilian court.

    All of them (and this includes any member of the military who goes along) are deviating from their solemn oath to preserve the
    constitution.

    Again, I hope the President adds a signing statement but I'm concerned that he won't.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  9. #8
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    i hate working with PDF stuff. More:
    If my city has a charter provision requiring it to collect property taxes, but that piece of language is altered so that the city may
    collect property taxes, we all know what will happen. The city will still collect property taxes.

    Cosmetic language changes don't an can't change the underlying flaw of this section, which is an end run around the Bill of Rights.

    People here (US) are so fearful of Al Quida they will vote to give up that sacred protection. Today, Al QUida. Tomorrow, alleged
    witches?

    This thing is so fundamentally wrong the stench can't be covered over with the perfume of section 17.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  10. #9
    Distinguished Member Array Chaplain Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,681
    People here (US) are so fearful of Al Quida they will vote to give up that sacred protection. Today, Al QUida. Tomorrow, alleged witches?
    Even though there is a clause which stipulates that this cannot be used against US Citizens, I entirely agree that this seems a very slippery slope.

    By way of analogy: In ancient Rome, the early Christians were persecuted not because they worshipped Christ, they were persecuted, from the Roman point of view, because they refused to engage in Emporer worship and were thus considered bad, non-compliant citizens and home-grown terrorists! A slippery slope indeed!
    Scott, US Army 1974-2004

    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
    - Ronald Reagan

  11. #10
    Distinguished Member Array Doghandler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    West Branch
    Posts
    1,990

  12. #11
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,868
    This whole business is an end run around the Bill of Rights, based on an obscure and unique WWII espionage case which too could have been handled in a civilian court.

    All of them (and this includes any member of the military who goes along) are deviating from their solemn oath to preserve the
    constitution
    I'll start getting real worried when this quote gets changed. Then, and only then will I realize that all is lost...
    "There are croakers in every country, always boding its ruin."
    Benjamin Franklin
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

(b) applicability to united states citizens and lawful resident aliens.?(1) united states citizens. ?the require men

,
anti defense appropriations bill
,
anti terror bill dec 15
,
anti terrorist bill/december 16,2011
,
defense appropriations bill terrorism
,
defense appropriations terrorist
,
defense bil's anti terrorist
,

defense bill anti terror provision

,
defense bill's anti-terror provision
,
language in defense bill anti-terror provision
,
with new defense appropriations bill us citizens
Click on a term to search for related topics.