Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 06, 2016, 04:22:12 AM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: More Hilarity - "Can I have my spy plane back?"  (Read 10454 times)

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: More Hilarity - "Can I have my spy plane back?"
« Reply #25 on: December 26, 2011, 11:04:24 AM »
NDAA 2012 gives the US govt the power to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone for *any reason*.

http://rt.com/news/t...ards-government-613/

I don't think that points to what you think it does.  The smoking gun that was quoted there was distributed to military surplus stores.  I don't think wal-mart is a military surplus store.

And as far as the NDAA 2012, that's the legislative branch giving away authority to the executive branch, not the other way around.   Think about it- it made it through the house even as it stands.  The Republican controlled house.  What does that say?

And apparently (though not in as attention grabbing a headline) Obama has threatened to veto in its current form, so language is still being added to avoid a presidential veto.

More clarifications on the controversial terms.

Which, if true, would mean that Ron Paul and others who have supposedly read it, are either ignorant of these same facts (unlikely) or using the internet firestorm to their own advantage.

Which would be politics as usual.

Ron Paul can't save us now.  We can only save ourselves.


The link you have there doesn't address the controversial terms. I refers to 1021/1022 when the real problem is 1031.

It sounds like misdirection to me.

From the article you posted:

Quote

The misinformation surrounding the 2012 NDAA is a result of the misinterpretation of provisions included in Sections 1021 and 1022 of the act. These provisions are an important part of the 2012 NDAA and provide vital clarity for our Armed Forces defending America around the world. Our forces have officially withdrawn from Iraq and are on a timetable for a similar drawdown in Afghanistan. However, terrorists around the world continue to plot devastating attacks against Americans.


What total utter nonsense! I seriously just want to vomit. That anyone could possibly put forth such utter bold face lies is disgusting!

You can read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia....for_Fiscal_Year_2012


If you read 1031, it clearly sets out a police state. The only offense you need to be suspected of is being "belligerent". Literally. It's very clear.

(I can't find the govt reference at the moment. I read it before, and it's crystal clear -- YOU are the enemy now. YOU are the "terrorist". It's sick and perverse.)

Like seriously, what kind of a douchewad (or idiot) would point people to 1021/1022 when the problem is 1031? Lies. Malicious lies. It's purely misdirection.

Obama never vetoed it. It went through. (At least as far as I've read on it.)

Am I missing something? Did the world change under my feet in the last few days. It would sure as hell be a welcome belated Christmas present!

 

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

wraith808

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 8,406
  • "In my dreams, I always do it right."
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: More Hilarity - "Can I have my spy plane back?"
« Reply #26 on: December 26, 2011, 03:02:27 PM »
Section 1031?  I've read it, and it doesn't say that.  To quote in its entirety:
Quote
SEC. 1031. DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO.

In this subtitle, the term `individual detained at Guantanamo' means any individual who is located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or after March 7, 2011, who--
(1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and
(2) is in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense.

Unless you mean another section 1031?  But that's pulled directly from the bill's text.  Perhaps section 1034 is what you mean:
Quote
SEC. 1034. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES.

Congress affirms that--
(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;
(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and
(4) the President's authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

But even that is limited, though the language is unclear.  The intent is towards combatants in the 'war', and this unclear terminology is being used as a talking point.

That fact (and Ron Paul's usage of the talking point) is made a bit more clear in this bit by Politifact.com.

Quote
Paul’s debate warning ties to the House-approved language adding "associated forces" to the Taliban and al-Qaeda as permitted U.S. targets--not to the Defense Department’s budget, contrary to his wording.

Most significantly, the U.S. government has laid claim to such authority for about a decade. So even if the cited provisions pass into law, they would not change how the government prosecutes detainees. Also, we saw no evidence that the change would make American non-combatants vulnerable. We rate Paul’s claim Mostly False.

This is not to say that there aren't still problems with the legislation as written.  My major point is that Ron Paul is a politician.  Relying on him to 'save us' is just like relying on Obama to enact 'change that we can believe in'.  Everyone is hampered by a lack of understanding that the politicians serve the people rather than themselves and special interests, so that the government is deadlocked.  The people need to send a clear word to the politicians that we don't want washington to be politics as usual.  But we don't.  And whomever wins is spun to be a victory by the people, but the people had little to do with it, other than being directed by the spending and commercials to vote for the lesser evil.

Obama never vetoed it. It went through.

From govtrack.us
Quote
Status: Passed Congress. Next: Having passed in identical form in both the House and Senate, this bill now awaits the signature of the President before becoming law. [Last Updated: Dec 22, 2011 12:00PM]

Senate vote details

House Vote Details

As the President is on vacation (and has been since before that update) it has not been signed.

J-Mac

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 2,913
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: More Hilarity - "Can I have my spy plane back?"
« Reply #27 on: December 26, 2011, 08:44:59 PM »
Sections 1031 and 1032 originally had wording that did allow the detention of American citizens if they were suspected of supporting terrorists, and specifically denied any rights to US courts/justice system. That was what made the bill such a hot topic. The final bill, as voted on, did not have that wording. Still that doesn’t appear to be clear to everyone and seems to be at the root of continuing debate.

Jim

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: More Hilarity - "Can I have my spy plane back?"
« Reply #28 on: December 26, 2011, 09:16:37 PM »
Sections 1031 and 1032 originally had wording that did allow the detention of American citizens if they were suspected of supporting terrorists, and specifically denied any rights to US courts/justice system. That was what made the bill such a hot topic. The final bill, as voted on, did not have that wording. Still that doesn’t appear to be clear to everyone and seems to be at the root of continuing debate.

Jim


That makes sense.

Found the reference... It's moved from 1031 to 1021, so looks like I was out of date above and being ranty again. :D

http://thomas.loc.go...query/z?d112:HR01540: < You need to drill down. You can't link to it directly.

Quote
SEC. 1021. 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 ... 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:

 ...

 (2) ...any person who has committed a belligerent act...

It's still there. It still says "anyone we feel like". "Belligerent act" is simply massively broad.


Also -- I was wrong about Obama passing it:

Quote
There are 7 versions of Bill Number H.R.1540 for the 112th Congress. Usually, the last item is the most recent.
 1 .  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Introduced in House - IH)[H.R.1540.IH][PDF]
 2 .  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Reported in House - RH)[H.R.1540.RH][PDF]
 3 .  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in House [Passed House] - EH)[H.R.1540.EH][PDF]
 4 .  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Referred in Senate - RFS)[H.R.1540.RFS][PDF]
 5 .  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed Amendment Senate - EAS)[H.R.1540.EAS][PDF]
 6 .  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Print - PP)[H.R.1540.PP][PDF]
 7 .  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)[H.R.1540.ENR][PDF]

I take it that the next stage is for Obama to pass it.

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

wraith808

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 8,406
  • "In my dreams, I always do it right."
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: More Hilarity - "Can I have my spy plane back?"
« Reply #29 on: December 27, 2011, 10:47:18 AM »
It's moved from 1031 to 1021, so looks like I was out of date above and being ranty again. :D

http://thomas.loc.go...query/z?d112:HR01540: < You need to drill down. You can't link to it directly.

Quote
SEC. 1021. 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 ... 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:

 ...

 (2) ...any person who has committed a belligerent act...

It's still there. It still says "anyone we feel like". "Belligerent act" is simply massively broad.

No, it's not still there.  Sections stay the same in bills, but can be dropped or added as needed, so you have to look at the final bill to see what is being voted on/passed.

This is the one that is being presented to the president (the same one in your quote on the 7th version).  Note that section 1021 does not exist.

The situation that Jim pointed out is the truth of the matter. (Thanks for that Jim)  Why it's being referred to as still being in the bill?  I don't know...

And the link I posted above tells the exact stage that the bill is in.

J-Mac

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 2,913
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: More Hilarity - "Can I have my spy plane back?"
« Reply #30 on: December 27, 2011, 04:16:06 PM »
It's probably still being referred to as being in there because the press hammered it home when the old wording was there. However since it was removed there hasn’t been much of a peep about it in the press. No longer exciting, I guess.

Jim

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: More Hilarity - "Can I have my spy plane back?"
« Reply #31 on: December 27, 2011, 08:01:20 PM »
It's moved from 1031 to 1021, so looks like I was out of date above and being ranty again. :D

http://thomas.loc.go...query/z?d112:HR01540: < You need to drill down. You can't link to it directly.

Quote
SEC. 1021. 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 ... 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:

 ...

 (2) ...any person who has committed a belligerent act...

It's still there. It still says "anyone we feel like". "Belligerent act" is simply massively broad.

No, it's not still there.  Sections stay the same in bills, but can be dropped or added as needed, so you have to look at the final bill to see what is being voted on/passed.

This is the one that is being presented to the president (the same one in your quote on the 7th version).  Note that section 1021 does not exist.

The situation that Jim pointed out is the truth of the matter. (Thanks for that Jim)  Why it's being referred to as still being in the bill?  I don't know...

And the link I posted above tells the exact stage that the bill is in.

The link you have there doesn't seem to work. Same for mine above.

Hopefully this works:

http://www.gpo.gov/f...LLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

That's for v7. Is that the right one or wrong one?

If it's still written "in there", how can you tell that it's not "still in there"?


I went back to the link you shared:

http://dailycaller.c...e-authorization-act/

Quote
The misinformation surrounding the 2012 NDAA is a result of the misinterpretation of provisions included in Sections 1021 and 1022 of the act.

I still find that hard to swallow. I suppose that I would expect a certain degree of precision and a lack of ambiguity. If it can be "misinterpreted" in a particular way, then why can't it be "interpreted" in a particular way. These kinds of arguments are common in religious circles regarding holy texts. e.g. You have Lutherans, Pentecostals, Baptists, and Catholics all coming away from the Bible with different readings. By the same token, you don't get people walking away from mathematical treatise or physics texts with different interpretations because they're meant to be precise and exact. I would assume that precision in legal matters would similarly be a good thing.

If the "misinformation" is just a "misinterpretation", then great. But really, the whole "just trust me" thing hasn't really panned out very well in the past. I suppose I'm just not that trusting.


In any event, how can I find the final version? The only versions that I can locate still have those same things in there.







Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

J-Mac

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 2,913
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: More Hilarity - "Can I have my spy plane back?"
« Reply #32 on: December 27, 2011, 09:25:19 PM »
Here is the bill - 1867 - as passed and sent to the President:

Text version online:  http://thomas.loc.go...2:./temp/~c11298gWgn::

PDF version:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/pdf/BILLS-112s1867es.pdf

Sec. 1021 & 1022 address Maritime issues and have nothing to do with detention of persons, AFAICT:

Quote
SEC. 1021. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR PLACING MARITIME PREPOSITIONING SHIP SQUADRONS ON REDUCED OPERATING STATUS.

    No amounts authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be obligated or expended to place a Maritime Prepositioning Ship squadron, or any component thereof, on reduced operating status until the later of the following:

        (1) The date on which the Commandant of the Marine Corps submits to the congressional defense committees a report setting forth an assessment of the impact on military readiness of the plans of the Navy for placing such Maritime Prepositioning Ship squadron, or component thereof, on reduced operating status.

        (2) The date on which the Chief of Naval Operations submits to the congressional defense committees a report that--

            (A) describes the plans of the Navy for placing such Maritime Prepositioning Ship squadron, or component thereof, on reduced operating status; and

            (B) sets forth comments of the Chief of Naval Operations on the assessment described in paragraph (1).

        (3) The date on which the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense committees that the risks to readiness of placing such Maritime Prepositioning squadron, or component thereof, on reduced operating status are acceptable.

SEC. 1022. MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS ON STATUS OF RETIRED AIRCRAFT CARRIER EX-JOHN F. KENNEDY.

    Section 1011(c)(2) of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364; 120 Stat. 2374) is amended by striking `shall require' and all that follows and inserting `may, notwithstanding paragraph (1), demilitarize the vessel in preparation for the transfer.'.

And Sec. 1031 appears to have no provisions for detention of US citizens and aliens:

Quote
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).
(Emphasis added by me)

Jim

wraith808

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 8,406
  • "In my dreams, I always do it right."
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: More Hilarity - "Can I have my spy plane back?"
« Reply #33 on: December 28, 2011, 12:21:04 AM »
Hopefully this works:

http://www.gpo.gov/f...LLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

That's for v7. Is that the right one or wrong one?

Yes, that's the correct one, and the changes are in that one.

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,137
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: More Hilarity - "Can I have my spy plane back?"
« Reply #34 on: January 12, 2012, 06:52:34 PM »
Given this bit of news, it rather looks as though the US might be asking Iran to give back some more of their UAVs:
Russian, French warships off Syria, Iran, US drones over Iranian coast
...Oh, but wait...
« Last Edit: January 12, 2012, 07:01:46 PM by IainB »