20 replies to this topic

['12brotruckmofo]

NDAA 2012 - uncalled for? unconstitutional?

Or is this something good? After all, senate seems to be largely in favor it.

All the propaganda seems to point towards the several specific sections (1031 and 1032?) being in violation of the bill of rights...sounds pretty terrifying, but maybe I'm missing something. Besides, it's not like the government hasn't violated rights and privacy in the past.

"Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States
to detain covered persons
Sec. 1032. Requirement for military custody."

In isolation, the sections don't seem out of the ordinary.

Reading on,
"( APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require-
ment to detain a person in military custody under
this section does not extend to citizens of the United
States."

Also, covered people are essentially defined as anyone that "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" or has some link to 9/11.

[Che'_Moderator]

Rest of the world has had policies like this for years. Actually.... we have had policies like this for years.

[Burn-E]

Che, on 07 December 2011 - 01:51 PM, said:

Rest of the world has had policies like this for years. Actually.... we have had policies like this for years.

And that's a good thing? I'm not a tea partier or an OWS-er but detaining US citizens (non-soldiers) who are identified on US soil as allegedly preparing or supporting terrorist acts and sending them to military tribunals violates the 5th, 6th, and potentially the 8th amendment rights.

TOO MANY SECRETS.

[JCviggen]

Che, on 07 December 2011 - 01:51 PM, said:

Rest of the world has had policies like this for years.

Rest of the world like where exactly? Iran? Syria perhaps?

[Che'_Moderator]

Burn-E, on 07 December 2011 - 04:09 PM, said:

And that's a good thing? I'm not a tea partier or an OWS-er but detaining US citizens (non-soldiers) who are identified on US soil as preparing terrorist acts and sending them to military tribunals violates the 5th, 6th, and potentially the 8th amendment rights.

You can throw the amendments out because they do no apply to national security. We can argue if they should or not, but thats a whole different subject matter. What it really comes down to is they are just clarifying what they already do. They ambiguity comes from our treason laws which have been on the books for over 100 years.

JCviggen, on 07 December 2011 - 04:16 PM, said:

Rest of the world like where exactly? Iran? Syria perhaps?

Not going to entertain your trolling on this. The obvious answer to your question is the United States

[JCviggen]

I'm not trolling I was just trying to think where on earth a civilian can get tried by a military tribunal in his "own" country.
And I figured "rest of the world" kind of excluded the US given the topic. You made it sound like a regular thing which I don't think it is. Not like I care one way or another about it really.

Edited by JCviggen, 07 December 2011 - 04:32 PM.

[Che'_Moderator]

JCviggen, on 07 December 2011 - 04:30 PM, said:

I'm not trolling I was just trying to think where on earth a civilian can get tried by a military tribunal in his "own" country.
And I figured "rest of the world" kind of excluded the US given the topic.

Russia, and Spain are bad about it. Israel is also REALLY bad about it. UK likes to play cloak and dagger but they hand it off and do the same BS under higher treason laws. We still kill people convicted of treason here, though off the top of my head I cannot think of anyone convicted of treason in the last decade. Just because we can, does not mean we do. There are TONs of laws on the books that are not enforced. Anti-sodomy laws come to mind.No one is arresting Jena Jameson.

[Burn-E]

Che, on 07 December 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

You can throw the amendments out because they do no apply to national security. We can argue if they should or not, but thats a whole different subject matter. What it really comes down to is they are just clarifying what they already do. They ambiguity comes from our treason laws which have been on the books for over 100 years.

It's too easy to claim national security these days on trumped up charges. I agree that if Padilla for instance hadn't gone looking for trouble he wouldn't have wound up in the situation he was in, but there doesn't seem to be a bright line here. Lacking that, treasonable offenses can easily be dropped on unaware citizens. I'm not an Enemy of State conspiracy theorist but I still think the whole process would do better with those witnesses testifying in open court as Article III Section 3 states.

[Che'_Moderator]

Burn-E, on 07 December 2011 - 04:38 PM, said:

It's too easy to claim national security these days on trumped up charges.

See my orginal post. Thats a whole different debate

[JCviggen]

Che, on 07 December 2011 - 04:34 PM, said:

Russia, and Spain are bad about it.

I'm not sure about Russia but i'll check since I'm here now Israel I think is plausible.

You can scratch Spain off that shortlist though.

Quote

During the Franco regime, military courts were competent to try a wide array of political crimes by civilians, including terrorist acts and offenses against military honor by the press. Martial law was invoked frequently, enabling military courts to prosecute civilians charged with participating in strikes, demonstrations, and subversive meetings. In accordance with the requirements of the new 1978 Constitution, an organic law passed in 1980 abolished the jurisdiction of military courts over civilians. In addition, common crimes committed by military personnel were to be tried in civil courts, and sentences imposed by military courts were subject to review by the Supreme Council of Military Justice and by the civil Supreme Court as the final court of appeal.

[Burn-E]

Che, on 07 December 2011 - 04:34 PM, said:

We still kill people convicted of treason here, though off the top of my head I cannot think of anyone convicted of treason in the last decade.

John Walker Lindh (conspiracy to murder - because the burden of proof was easier than treason), Adam Yahiye Gadahn (Adam Pearlman indicted for Treason - more likely to be taken out by Predator than ever brought to trial), a number of others were convicted of espionage since again the burden was easier to prove.

[Che'_Moderator]

Facepalm....
Those laws apply to just about everything except high treason. Same as in the US. Not sure about Spain, but most countries even have laws to expedite removal of citizenship if needed. Its much like the laws that protect civilians can be revoked. Those laws are more clearly written, but in body the same spirit. When a civilian takes up arms against a uniformed occupational army they cease to be a civilian and forfeit any granted protections. This is what I did for 11 years. A lot goes on you do not hear about and will never hear about. The abuses of power and much less at the federal governmental level in regards to civiliansatleast when compared with the local level. Not to say they do not happen, but its a cest la vie scenario. Trust me, you rather be without your rights in a federal holding center with your family screaming bloody murder from the outside than the alternative.

Burn-E, on 07 December 2011 - 04:47 PM, said:

John Walker Lindh (conspiracy to murder - because the burden of proof was easier than treason), Adam Yahiye Gadahn (Adam Pearlman indicted for Treason - more likely to be taken out by Predator than ever brought to trial), a number of others were convicted of espionage since again the burden was easier to prove.

So no one for treason? Anyone...... One person even?

[JCviggen]

Che, on 07 December 2011 - 04:52 PM, said:

When a civilian takes up arms against a uniformed occupational army they cease to be a civilian and forfeit any granted protections.

I'd certainly think so, but the difference here is that one is assumed innocent until proven guilty. If you're proven guilty of plotting to blow up some of your fellow countrymen then certainly something like a military court doesn't seem particularly out of order.
If suspicion of terrorism is enough to get you there then that's a different ball game.

Edited by JCviggen, 07 December 2011 - 04:59 PM.

[Burn-E]

Che, on 07 December 2011 - 04:52 PM, said:

So no one for treason? Anyone...... One person even?

Adam Pearlman/Gadahn in 2006 was the first in over 40 years - the only reason he isn't convicted is because they haven't captured him yet. There's arguably sufficient evidence given his predilection for being a talking head on video for Al-Qaeda that his acts are treasonous.

They haven't gone the route of treason with others though since it was easier to detain and convict on lower charges. The agencies have been largely a clusterf*ck when it comes to handling the so-called cases they do find.

[Che'_Moderator]

JCviggen, on 07 December 2011 - 04:58 PM, said:

If suspicion of terrorism is enough to get you there then that's a different ball game.

It is and has been.

Burn-E, on 07 December 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:

There's arguably sufficient evidence given his predilection for being a talking head on video for Al-Qaeda that his acts are treasonous.

Thats sedition not treason.

[Burn-E]

Che, on 07 December 2011 - 05:10 PM, said:

Thats sedition not treason.

It would be except Gadahn is acting in a manner that aids and abets an identified terrorist organization which led to his indictment specifically for treason and not sedition. As the article I linked to states his actions are analogous to Iva Toguri d'Aquino (one of the many voices of Tokyo Rose) who also was convicted for treason - though later pardoned.

[Che'_Moderator]

You can indicte a ham sandwich.

[Burn-E]

Che, on 07 December 2011 - 05:37 PM, said:

You can indicte a ham sandwich.

I've had a few worth indicting for bad taste. Subway comes to mind, as does the cafeteria here at work.

['12brotruckmofo]

So the bill explicitly says Americans can be tried? If you're a covered person, you're fucked?

[Che'_Moderator]

You always could be. As funny as it sounds the bill almost grants you more protection by spelling some things out. Before it was more like the wild west.