So, is the exclusion of US Citizens absolute in this, or is there away around it? Is there a way for citizens to be detained militarily without being given their normal rights as a US Citizen?

 

It looks to me like this only applies to non-citizens who are deemed enemy combatants.

So, is the exclusion of US Citizens absolute in this, or is there away around it? Is there a way for citizens to be detained militarily without being given their normal rights as a US Citizen?

 

It looks to me like this only applies to non-citizens who are deemed enemy combatants.

 

Gray area as it always has been. The 2nd link I posted mentions more about that.

Gray area as it always has been. The 2nd link I posted mentions more about that.

 

Figured as much, that's why I was asking. Anything that is too wordy makes me suspicious.

Figured as much, that's why I was asking. Anything that is too wordy makes me suspicious.

Me too. Plus I usually get lost in the legal speak. After reading about 3 lines I glass over and retain basically zero of what I read.

Figured as much, that's why I was asking. Anything that is too wordy makes me suspicious.

 

The problem is that when you try to take something complicated and fit it into a paragraph it often gets misrepresented and misunderstood.

A good write-up by Justia.com.

 

http://verdict.justia.com/2011/12/21/the-national-defense-authorization-act-explained

 

Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) - a joint resolution passed by Congress in September 2001.

 

Finally, it should also be noted that the set of “covered persons” subject to possible military detention, as defined in section 1021(b) of the NDAA, is far broader than the set of persons mentioned in the AUMF. While section 1021(b)(1) relies on the wording of the AUMF, section 1021(b)(2), which defines an additional category of potential detainees, is based on the Obama administration’s definition of “unprivileged enemy belligerent” (which, itself, is just a slight tweaking of the Bush administration’s definition of “unlawful enemy combatant”).

 

This provision covers not only persons who are members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces (all broad and possibly inchoate categories in themselves), but also persons who “substantially supported” those groups. The concept of “substantial support” is potentially quite broad (what kind of support is covered, and might opinion or expression count?). Also, support is an extremely controversial basis for law of war detention, even in traditional wars, and the issue has sparked enormous litigation at Guantanamo.

 

And some think the Patriot Act is bad law? At least it only allows for communication interception and requires mandatory reporting and pattern matching of transactions by financial institutions. This allows for indefinite detaining for 'substancially' (ill-defined) 'supporting' (ill-defined) of America's supposed enemies (that the VP says are not enemies). If the Patriot Act stomped on some civil liberties this law tramples them under the ground.

Application to US Citizens:

 

SEC. 1032.(b)(1)and(2)

 

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

 

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

 

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

 

-- "NOT A REQUIREMENT" LEAVES IT UP TO THEIR "DISCRETION" (WHIM). IT IS NOT A PROHIBITION.

A good write-up by Justia.com.

 

http://verdict.justia.com/2011/12/21/the-national-defense-authorization-act-explained

 

Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) - a joint resolution passed by Congress in September 2001.

 

 

 

And some think the Patriot Act is bad law? At least it only allows for communication interception and requires mandatory reporting and pattern matching of transactions by financial institutions. This allows for indefinite detaining for 'substancially' (ill-defined) 'supporting' (ill-defined) of America's supposed enemies (that the VP says are not enemies). If the Patriot Act stomped on some civil liberties this law tramples them under the ground.

 

I've read this and other reports many, many times. What I can't get my head around is how this is different than what already existed. Even the report say that the subjective "unprivileged enemy belligerent" is only a slight modification of the Bush administration's definition of "unlawful enemy combatant."

 

What am I missing?

edit

Application to US Citizens:

 

SEC. 1032.(b)(1)and(2)

 

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

 

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

 

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

 

-- "NOT A REQUIREMENT" LEAVES IT UP TO THEIR "DISCRETION" (WHIM). IT IS NOT A PROHIBITION.

 

From what I've read on Rumsfield v Hamdi the govt does not have the right to detail a citizen, even if designated an enemy combatant, without access to the judicial process.

From what I've read on Rumsfield v Hamdi the govt does not have the right to detail a citizen, even if designated an enemy combatant, without access to the judicial process.

 

Scalia's dissent in Hamdi is excellent. Say what you will about Scalia, but he believes in simple answers and in his mind, Congress either has to suspend the rule of Habeas Corpus or else he must be tried under normal criminal law. It would have been much more restrictive on executive power than what the plurality came up with.

I've read this and other reports many, many times. What I can't get my head around is how this is different than what already existed. Even the report say that the subjective "unprivileged enemy belligerent" is only a slight modification of the Bush administration's definition of "unlawful enemy combatant."

 

What am I missing?

 

The 2nd paragraph shows the 'new part'.

 

From the article and above:

 

"...but also persons who “substantially supported” those groups. The concept of “substantial support” is potentially quite broad (what kind of support is covered, and might opinion or expression count?). Also, support is an extremely controversial basis for law of war detention, even in traditional wars, and the issue has sparked enormous litigation at Guantanamo. "

 

So the 'pool' of suspects gets a lot bigger than used to be. Couple this with the surveillance functions of the Patriot Act and the ability to detain a US Citizen indefinitely grows. From what I could tell Patriot Act provides the information. This act would allow for targeted action. But all without formal charges and with a lot of arbitrary discretion and circumvents the vaunted due process provisions of the Constitution.

 

There was a reason the CIA was supposedly firewalled from operating in the boundaries of the US. Because a government using such techniques on its own citizens would not be a government of the people. But it seems we are all suspects now.

If this standard were applied to Hanoi Jane we may never had the classic movie Barbarella!

The 2nd paragraph shows the 'new part'.

 

From the article and above:

 

"...but also persons who “substantially supported” those groups. The concept of “substantial support” is potentially quite broad (what kind of support is covered, and might opinion or expression count?). Also, support is an extremely controversial basis for law of war detention, even in traditional wars, and the issue has sparked enormous litigation at Guantanamo. "

 

So the 'pool' of suspects gets a lot bigger than used to be. Couple this with the surveillance functions of the Patriot Act and the ability to detain a US Citizen indefinitely grows. From what I could tell Patriot Act provides the information. This act would allow for targeted action. But all without formal charges and with a lot of arbitrary discretion and circumvents the vaunted due process provisions of the Constitution.

 

There was a reason the CIA was supposedly firewalled from operating in the boundaries of the US. Because a government using such techniques on its own citizens would not be a government of the people. But it seems we are all suspects now.

 

Again, doesn't Rumsfeld v Hamdi these concerns?

If this standard were applied to Hanoi Jane we may never had the classic movie Barbarella!

 

Jane was getting it done in 1968.