NP: Alienation and Sedition Act?

[Henry M]

Thanks, Robert.  There is, in paragraph (1) of section 1032, a requirement
to hold certain classes of persons that in (b) is specified as not
extending to United States Citizens or to Lawful Resident Aliens.  I am not
a lawyer, but as an Information Assurance analyst and former technical
writer, my read is that, the ability to hold Americans has not changed,
i.e. it is not expressly forbidden in this bill.  I also think that it
would take just a few tweaks for the bill to expressly exclude United
States Citizens or to Lawful Resident Aliens from being held under the
bill, but your read may be different.

AsB4,
٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
Henry Mu
http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20


On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Robert Mahnke <rpmahnke at gmail.com> wrote:

> Henry,
>
>
> This is not an area of the law I know much about, and so it is quite
> likely that I am missing something important.  With that important
> caveat, this is what I think this the proposed language would do:
>
>
>
> As a general matter, the Posse Comitatus Act  of 1878 (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act) bars the military from
> engaging in law enforcement within the United States.  It sounds like the
> proposed language in Section 1031 would loosen this restriction in
> connection with the “war on terror,” and would permit suspected terrorists
> within the United States (including U.S. citizens) to be held in military
> custody instead of the criminal justice system.
>
>
>
> Section 1031(a) “affirms” (which is a lawyerly way of saying ‘changes the
> law to now say (while pretending that the law has always been)’) that the
> President’s authority under the AUMF (Public Law 107-40, a post 9/11 which
> gives the Executive Branch broad authority to combat terrorism) “includes
> the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain *covered
> persons … pending disposition under the law of war*.”  (This language
> would trump anything contrary in the Posse Comitatus Act.)  This prompts
> further questions: Who are “covered persons”?  What does “pending
> disposition under the law of war”?
>
>
>
> Section 1031(b) defines “covered persons.”  They include anyone who
> “substantially supported” Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces,”
> “including any person who has … directly supported [] hostilities in aid of
> such enemy forces.”  In this context, I don’t see a reason that the
> “support” requisite here could not be construed very broadly.
>
>
>
> Section 1031(c) explains what “pending disposition under the law of war”
> means.  It means a person can be “detained without trial” until the war
> on terror is over (“the end of the hostilities authorized by the AUMF”).  Section
> 1031(c)(1).  It also means that a person can be turned over to the
> government of “another other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.”
> Section 1031(c)(4).
>
>
>
> Section 1032 not only permits but requires that some of the “covered
> persons” be detained without trial, with some exceptions.  U.S. citizens
> are exempted from this requirement, Section 1032(b)(1), but not – as far as
> I can tell – from the provisions of Section 1031.
>
>
> Which is to say that Section 1031 permits U.S. citizens who “directly
> support[]” Al Qaeda, etc., can be locked up by the military without a trial
> until the war on terror is over, but it at least lets the military to use
> the ordinary courts.  On a quick reading, I believe Section 1032 would
> mean that the President and DOJ could not use the federal courts to try
> terrorism suspects who are not U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents,
> even if they wanted to.
>
>
>
> Is that different from what you understood?
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Henry M <scuffling at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,
>> is being attacked by people who, for the most part, haven't read it at
>> all, and also and by firebaggers who are up to their "Dem's are
>> hardly, if at all, better than Repubs so don't vote for them either"
>> tricks.
>>
>> The ACLU, which I practically always agree with, has said “The Senate
>> is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and
>> every future president — the power to order the military to pick up
>> and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world.
>> The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the
>> military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even
>> within the United States itself.” They, and Sen. Mark Udall cite
>> sections are 1031 and 1032 of the bill.
>>
>> Would someone please actually read the sections in question and then
>> explain to me how these they represent a new threat to Americans, or
>> even to "lawful resident aliens." I'd really appreciate it, 'cause I
>> don't see it!  I really would like to understand.  I mean it!
>>
>> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf
>>
>> AsB4,
>> ٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
>> Henry Mu
>> http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20111201/25c2777a/attachment.html>