Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
More Hilarity - "Can I have my spy plane back?"
J-Mac:
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:
It's moved from 1031 to 1021, so looks like I was out of date above and being ranty again. :D
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR01540: < You need to drill down. You can't link to it directly.
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...
--- End quote ---
It's still there. It still says "anyone we feel like". "Belligerent act" is simply massively broad.
-Renegade (December 26, 2011, 09:16 PM)
--- End quote ---
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.
-wraith808 (December 27, 2011, 10:47 AM)
--- End quote ---
The link you have there doesn't seem to work. Same for mine above.
Hopefully this works:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-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.com/2011/12/22/dont-believe-the-rumors-about-the-2012-national-defense-authorization-act/
The misinformation surrounding the 2012 NDAA is a result of the misinterpretation of provisions included in Sections 1021 and 1022 of the act.
--- End quote ---
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.
J-Mac:
Here is the bill - 1867 - as passed and sent to the President:
Text version online: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./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:
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.'.
--- End quote ---
And Sec. 1031 appears to have no provisions for detention of US citizens and aliens:
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).
--- End quote ---
(Emphasis added by me)
Jim
wraith808:
Hopefully this works:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf
That's for v7. Is that the right one or wrong one?
-Renegade (December 27, 2011, 08:01 PM)
--- End quote ---
Yes, that's the correct one, and the changes are in that one.
IainB:
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...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version