Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why do people keep bringing up the treatment of Manning in a military prison re: Snowden? [View all]Recursion
(56,582 posts)114. Robert Earl said 1022; take it up with him
Here's section 1021; it doesn't apply to Snowden either. Note section (b), "COVERED PERSONS"
Note particularly "Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens,"
As well as the fact that the entire section doesn't actually have any legal effect (they say as much).
You're not trying very hard, are you?
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILI-
TARY 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 10740;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in sub-
section (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 11184)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the persons 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 organiza-
tions, entities, and individuals considered to be covered persons
for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILI-
TARY 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 10740;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in sub-
section (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 11184)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the persons 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 organiza-
tions, entities, and individuals considered to be covered persons
for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
188 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Why do people keep bringing up the treatment of Manning in a military prison re: Snowden? [View all]
Recursion
Jul 2013
OP
I wonder if Manny has links to some documentation which backs up his accusation.
Cali_Democrat
Jul 2013
#8
So the answer is "yes, he can be put in solitary confinement for the rest of his life"
MannyGoldstein
Jul 2013
#19
If he were convicted and sentenced to life in prison, and the prison regulations allowed that
Recursion
Jul 2013
#43
Yes, despite the fact that the MILITARY'S OWN PSYCHIATRIST said he wasn't a suicide risk! n/t
markpkessinger
Jul 2013
#40
Actually, there were several psychiatrists involved, including one who not long before
struggle4progress
Jul 2013
#49
Bullshit. He was treated that way by military personnel because they viewed him
JaneyVee
Jul 2013
#28
Who, exactly, is the commander in chief, the top dog, the head honcho, of the military?
ret5hd
Jul 2013
#77
So will there be any courts-martial for that gross violation of human rights
HardTimes99
Jul 2013
#183
They need to excuse the assholes treason. Obama is guilty of following the law
uponit7771
Jul 2013
#3
Well, the 2012 version only applies to persons identified as members of Al Qaeda
Recursion
Jul 2013
#94
Why don't you find in the NDAA the exact section that you think could be used
struggle4progress
Jul 2013
#50
The bill was hundreds of pages long. I suspect the poster never bothered to read
struggle4progress
Jul 2013
#86
Stop spreading disinformation. Section 1021 outlines indefinite detention, not 1022.
woo me with science
Jul 2013
#113
You're the one claiming there's some law allowing the indefinite detention of US Citizens
Recursion
Jul 2013
#153
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody
Demit
Jul 2013
#177
Stop spreading disinformation. No. 1021 is for indefinite detention,
woo me with science
Jul 2013
#111
That's exactly what I posted, only I didn't make stuff up about it like you did
Recursion
Jul 2013
#112
Yes. You're claiming there is some law that allows the indefinite detention of US citizens
Recursion
Jul 2013
#141
So, we're agreed no law allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens? Great.
Recursion
Jul 2013
#171
No, the point is that Americans are not clearly exempted from indefinite detention,
woo me with science
Jul 2013
#173
So, Section 1021 turned up empty for you, and now you're just saying there's a generic "danger"?
Recursion
Jul 2013
#174
Well, Snowden can always end in Gitmo. Not sure if I would consider THAT an improvement over
idwiyo
Jul 2013
#12
Yes. What he is most likely will end up in is a solitary confinement, not much better than Gitmo.
idwiyo
Jul 2013
#34
I know. It will be a solitary more likely and not better than what Manning had to go though.
idwiyo
Jul 2013
#35
He was in solitary while he was on suicide watch. This is a problem with military prisons in general
Recursion
Jul 2013
#48
I too am troubled that his request for a private unmonitored interview was denied
Recursion
Jul 2013
#125
I also think that Manning is getting a raw deal. It was he who brought the attention
southernyankeebelle
Jul 2013
#29
Sigh. He released a video that confirmed the military's finding that the attack was within the R.O.E
Recursion
Jul 2013
#54
Can't help but laugh at "Snowden would likely have been charged and released on bail".
idwiyo
Jul 2013
#64
Because when you go to the effort of keeping secret decisions based on secret laws made by secret
dkf
Jul 2013
#79
That's why I can't help but laugh at complete absurdity and hypocrisy of their posts.
idwiyo
Jul 2013
#180
Those are allowed by the rules of military prisons. Those rules should probaby be changed
Recursion
Jul 2013
#99
Well hell, we don't know that they didn't download his brain into a giant computer
Recursion
Jul 2013
#134
As I've said several times, his treatment was found to be illegal by a court
Recursion
Jul 2013
#151
And a judge held the law was broken, and came very close to setting him free
Recursion
Jul 2013
#150
No, that's established case law now. There wasn't case law on this before Padilla
Recursion
Jul 2013
#162
*shrug* Like I said, I can think of a million ways the government could screw us if it ignored law
Recursion
Jul 2013
#166
Because Obama is a power-mad dictator who likes to murder his enemies bare-handed.
baldguy
Jul 2013
#67
Does that mean you do not believe if caught, they might not consider tossing him in a
Drew Richards
Jul 2013
#81
Well I will have to go look it up but if he is possibly charged with treason I believe his
Drew Richards
Jul 2013
#102
Not to sound like a complete conspiracy nut but given our recent use of things like rendition
Arcanetrance
Jul 2013
#82
He will have all the rights and protections any accused federal felon has.
arely staircase
Jul 2013
#93
Yeah, after all there's no chance of a civilian ending up in a military prison without trial...
NuclearDem
Jul 2013
#137
As a person who has family and friends in prison. Bradley Manning was not tortured any more
bravenak
Jul 2013
#138
You are 100% correct. Instead he can be charged under a whole suite of SECRET laws, we, he AND...
TheMadMonk
Jul 2013
#169
A little Carribean vacation resort known as Gitmo. Numerous reports on prisoner treatment...
TheMadMonk
Jul 2013
#179