General Discussion

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)

41. Here is Section 1031 - which includes the Feinstein amendment language (e) 'bolded'

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:29 PM

Dec 2011

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).

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c112FEVhCz:e548990:

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

91 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama will not veto National Defense Authorization Act [View all] Javaman Dec 2011 OP

Why don't you trust secret panels noise Dec 2011 #1

:rofl: limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #6

Well, it will be our freedom loving military doing the deciding who is to be kidnapped. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #21

How did you know that the secret panels are secret? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #67

I didn't see the not, this is bad news. sarcasmo Dec 2011 #2

There is NO reason to veto it, please see comment #11 :) n/t Tx4obama Dec 2011 #12

Tex 4 Obama, please explain. Mimosa Dec 2011 #16

Here is Section 1032 - American citizens in The USA are exempt Tx4obama Dec 2011 #36

This message was self-deleted by its author Tx4obama Dec 2011 #37

It's not clear cut Aerows Dec 2011 #40

Here is Section 1031 - which includes the Feinstein amendment language (e) 'bolded' Tx4obama Dec 2011 #41

Read that analysis Aerows Dec 2011 #44

it says throwing Americans in jail forever is OPTIONAL. provis99 Dec 2011 #50

Your link timed out. The problems are with section 1031, not 1032, as I understand it. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #66

Obama just totally lost my vote peacebird Dec 2011 #3

again? jefferson_dem Dec 2011 #5

Hubby says he will not vote for him period. I fluctuate between no and he's better than repukes peacebird Dec 2011 #91

Why? n/t bhikkhu Dec 2011 #8

Another reason to Primary Obama RC Dec 2011 #4

Epic Obama FAIL. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #7

Why? bhikkhu Dec 2011 #9

They are ignoring sections 1031 and 1032 which explicitly excludes AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #20

Yes you are correct. See comments #36 and #41 for the text of those two sections. n/t Tx4obama Dec 2011 #42

There is NOTHING which "explicitly excludes" detaining US Citizens SaintPete Dec 2011 #74

Here -- AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #82

I don't think you read past my subjec line SaintPete Dec 2011 #86

I was being ironic. AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #88

That's Not Correct! SaintPete Dec 2011 #89

No response to post #89? SaintPete Dec 2011 #90

it's easier to whiz on Obama than read an article. spanone Dec 2011 #45

There is NO reason to veto it, please see comment #11 :) n/t Tx4obama Dec 2011 #14

there is NO reason to vote for it..nt xiamiam Dec 2011 #51

So, you're against 'the whole DoDA bill'? or just sections 1031 and 1032 Tx4obama Dec 2011 #53

Really? green917 Dec 2011 #76

"Don't buy into the hysteria" savalez Dec 2011 #10

He's the only one I've heard that people are discussing Aerows Dec 2011 #72

He spent another hour on it today. savalez Dec 2011 #79

There is NO reason to veto it. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #11

You like the idea of the military being able to pick of "suspects" anywhere in the world? Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #19

Oh... so it's ok as long as they aren't US citizens... SomethingFishy Dec 2011 #24

That appears to be the defense noise Dec 2011 #27

heh, it's very clever wording but still bad spooked911 Dec 2011 #28

Glad they added (e) sarcasmo Dec 2011 #39

Bernie Sanders thinks there is Aerows Dec 2011 #73

At least that was fixed. AverageJoe90 Dec 2011 #83

AP article from today Aerows Dec 2011 #13

Yes, apparently the AP is misreporting it. Perhaps they did not read the Feinstein amendment. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #29

Are you saying it isn't done without this legislation? bhikkhu Dec 2011 #30

And Section 1032 exempts/excludes U.S. citizens that live in The USA. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #35

This is horribly written legislation Aerows Dec 2011 #47

ding! FirstLight Dec 2011 #48

Probably........ AverageJoe90 Dec 2011 #84

ACLU was recommending against it on Dec. 9th TBF Dec 2011 #15

The ACLU just released this tonight. ForgoTheConsequence Dec 2011 #22

Thank you - TBF Dec 2011 #25

Unless congress declares war on the OWS movement, I think we're ok bhikkhu Dec 2011 #31

Congress didn't declare war on Japanese-Americans during WWII. OnyxCollie Dec 2011 #54

they sure didn't, and they have been preparing for unrest TBF Dec 2011 #60

This bill wouldn't have allowed it. bhikkhu Dec 2011 #78

Uh, you do know that second-generation Japanese Americans, OnyxCollie Dec 2011 #81

Ah, but you need to think Berlin Expat Dec 2011 #70

What I see as more likely is that the fear of indefinite detention modifies people's behaviors bhikkhu Dec 2011 #80

bingo..nt xiamiam Dec 2011 #52

Here's ProSense Dec 2011 #17

Is that a flip-flop? Flop-flip? Or, just a SOP politician's lie? Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #18

This is pissing a lot of people off. nt DocMac Dec 2011 #23

yeah, because it's outrageous and terrible and un-American spooked911 Dec 2011 #33

I think the only reason people are pissed is because they have NOT read the bill Tx4obama Dec 2011 #43

There are several people who have copied and pasted parts of the bill Aerows Dec 2011 #46

I think you're wrong-- I think people are pissed because they see a system way out of control spooked911 Dec 2011 #57

We are pissed off because we HAVE read the bill, and we know about KBR's contract to build detention TBF Dec 2011 #61

Actually, I'm pissed because I HAVE read the bill SaintPete Dec 2011 #75

I agree. DocMac Dec 2011 #49

Well, to hell with him and every traitor that voted "aye". There should be consequences for TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #26

we're into deep deep corruption levels spooked911 Dec 2011 #34

lindsey graham 'shut up' video limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #32

An analysis Aerows Dec 2011 #38

thanks-- that was my impression too spooked911 Dec 2011 #58

Thanks for the link. AverageJoe90 Dec 2011 #85

He should veto it based on spending alone... nt Modern_Matthew Dec 2011 #55

Not what it seems: caseymoz Dec 2011 #56

I feel like it's 2006 and deja vu all over again. Vinca Dec 2011 #59

Thank you. TBF Dec 2011 #62

This is really, really, really, really... thescreaminghead Dec 2011 #63

The assholes have the votes to override a veto. era veteran Dec 2011 #64

DC "Democrats" stand for NOTHING: blkmusclmachine Dec 2011 #65

Shocked! Not.... blackspade Dec 2011 #68

Huge surprise there NorthCarolina Dec 2011 #69

Is this America anymore? roamer65 Dec 2011 #71

It's As If Obama Is Going Out Of His Way To Lose My Vote. Paladin Dec 2011 #77

With 87 votes in place, it would have been a waste of time to even consider it tjwash Dec 2011 #87