S1867

Before you get started I selfishly wanted to throw out the point in which the MSM, (especially locally) refuses to spend the proper time on such massive topics. In the mean time they want to call us unsubstantiated, unconfirmed and not accountable. Well, let me just say this. Once you read this in full and realize you have NOT been educated by the MSM, I think you'll learn a whole new respect for "some" BLOGS. If it weren't for Blogs and Citizens coming forward with such information we'd be lost as a country. New Posts will fall below for the day.

Much has been said about the controversial National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, also known as S1867. This bill originated in the Senate where it was approved and forwarded to the House of Representatives. This week it was approved by the House and now it is on it's way to the President's desk, where it is expected to be signed into law.

S1867 addresses every aspect of our military from funding for research and developement of advanced military communications to the authority of our military to act at home and abroad, including the rules they must follow. Section 1031 is where the controversy begins....the authority of the U.S. military to arrest/detain people on U.S. soil which some say is a blatant violation of Posse Comitatus.

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies from using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any orders to do so must originate with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress. (Wikipedia)

Now to the meat of it. Section 1031 states as follows:

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 111–25 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).

Opponents of this legislation claim that:

1) Subsection "A" is, in fact, the Act of Congress required by the Posse Comitatus Act granting wide open authorization of the Military to engage in law enforcement activities and virtually naming the entire homeland a battlefront;

2) Although U.S. Citizens aren't listed under "Covered Persons" , they aren't specifically exempted; (more on that later)

3) Belligerent - defined as "hostile or aggressive: hostile, ready to start a fight, or ready to go to war" is very broad and would be used to detain U.S. Citizens ready to stand and use force to defend the Constitution - under section 1031.

Proponents of this legislation claim that opponents are wrong. That the following wording from section 1032 specifically protects U.S. Citizens from arrest by the U.S. Military should this be signed into law.

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.......

(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

It should be noted that this claim has no validity since it relates to section 1032 only (which is substantially more than listed above). It does NOT exempt U.S. Citizens from custody in section 1031.

And finally, opponents of this legislation say that Federal Law lays out certain circumstances under which U.S. Citizens can be stripped of their citizenship without recourse and therefore can be held without trial pursuant to the provisions of s1867. That Federal law is listed below.

a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

From the Homeland Security report: “Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” In other words, if you support the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution and want the government out of your business then this administration considers you a terrorist.

So, do you really want Obama to have the power to send the military to arrest you and detain you “under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities” as prescribed in Section 1031 of this act?