NDAA clarification

The full text of the bill is located at the link below. See the highlighted language for clarification.

Thanks to Congressman Louie Gohmert's Staff member Sarah.

http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/legislativetext/HR1...

Page 654

1 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
2 Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes
3 the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States
4 to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b))
5 pending disposition under the law of war.
6 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
7 this section is any person as follows:
8 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com-
9 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
10 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon-
11 sible for those attacks.
12 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
13 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
14 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
15 States or its coalition partners, including any person
16 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
17 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
18 forces.
19 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis-
20 position of a person under the law of war as described
21 in subsection (a) may include the following:
22 (1) Detention under the law of war without
23 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
24 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

f:\VHLC\121211\121211.094.xml (514854|11)

December 12, 2011 (2:19 p.m.)

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:19 Dec 12, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00654 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\DOCUME~1\KLMERY~1\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\H1540C~1.XML H

F:\SLC\ASCR12\H1540CONFRPT.XML

655

1 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United
2 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis-
3 sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–
4 84)).
5 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or
6 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
7 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the
8 person’s country of origin, any other foreign coun-
9 try, or any other foreign entity.
10 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in-
11 tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
12 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
13 Force.
14 (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
15 construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to
16 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
17 aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are
18 captured or arrested in the United States.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS 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.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require- ment 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.

Favorite

0 members favorited this

< Previous Post

Comment

You need to be a member of Rainy Day Patriots to add comments!

Join Rainy Day Patriots

Comment by Steve Ross on January 8, 2012 at 1:41pm: It seems to me, given all the explanations from members of Congress, that the conference committee did the best it could to stay within constitutional limits on this detainment issue. I certainly don't see Jeff Sessions going along with it otherwise. But, as I posted elsewhere, the key -- at least as I see it -- is the sentence that allows "the president" to waive those limits in the interest of national security. Given the president we have, and the questions about his truth-telling, as well as his lack of concern for those same constitutional limits when it suits him, the safeguards could turn out to not be worth the time it took to write them.

Comment by Nance Wendel on January 8, 2012 at 12:29pm: There are many conflicting reports on whether the language to 'include' American citizens in the detention sections of this bill are included or excluded. Senator Carl Levin indicates the PREZ would NOT sign the bill unless the language WAS IN. The prez did sign, and I'm inclined to believe the language is vague enough for either interpretation. The real question we should be asking is this. HOW can it be that this PROVISION is even being debated by our so-called leadership. The constitution is being eroded away legislatively which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This is the entire point of the document's management method of being amended. If we believe any congressional respons to this issue, we are fooling ourselves into la-la-land. The whole of them are in bed with the military-industrial complex which is the beneficiary of the annual NDAA. Betting on Ron Paul may be our only hope for the future. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHaJrnlqCgo

Comment by Rainy Day Patriots on January 6, 2012 at 11:39pm: More clarification - Thanks to Tony Llewelyn, Limestone County Tea Party

http://zanpg.posterous.com/ndaa-83586

Comment by Rainy Day Patriots on January 6, 2012 at 12:52pm: Senator Sessions comments

http://zanpg.posterous.com/national-defense-authorization-act

Comment by Steve Ross on January 6, 2012 at 11:51am: I emailed Senator Sessions late yesterday, asking if he could possibly post some sort of clarification on his web site regarding the controversial aspect of this NDAA measure. I'm about to leave town for the weekend, but will be back late Sunday. If there's nothing on the site by Monday morning, I'll call his office.

I think it might be efficacious for some of us to call or email Sessions to urge that he check this out.

Comment by Rainy Day Patriots on January 6, 2012 at 10:24am: It appears that nothing even the Constitution will stop this emerging dictator. But the bill stands as voted on and as written. It is not a Constitutional Amendment nor does it give law abiding POTUS free reign. This POTUS is the problem, a big giant monstrous problem. The weak House is despicable and does nothing to address the POTUS problem. We must fight for our freedoms at every turn. The Rainy Day Patriots tries hard to weigh the issues and distinguish the drama from the reality. Sometimes we miss the boat, we are volunteers, unfunded, simple folk doing our duty as citizens. We do not claim to be the final definitive answers to all issue, but we try! We provide as much info as time allows our regular daily "we have a life" schedule and let you the informed electorate and US Citizen decide. We appreciate all the comments and your participation as concerned Citizens, together we will restore some sanity to our Republic. Thanks.

Comment by The Murphy Monkey on January 6, 2012 at 6:50am: I have read all these pros and cons about the bill. I've read the bill...I've read the articles but do you think that this emerging dictator is not about making the law fit his model? Regardless, it's a setup to re- form the anti-constitution in his image.

Comment by Rainy Day Patriots on January 5, 2012 at 11:43pm: http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/rep-james-lankford-says-...

Comment by Rainy Day Patriots on January 5, 2012 at 7:53pm: We can only read the bill the bill that we have.

http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/legislativetext/HR1...

Comment by Steve Ross on January 5, 2012 at 7:50pm: I think there's still some question here, as seems obvious from what I see in these two most recent posts. The differing sources may connote misleading or erroneous information on one or both. My question is this: it appears the House kept the military custordy clause OUT of its bill. But the measure went to conference committee. So, how do we know from the House website that the clause wasn't inserted in committee. BO specifically mentioned it and his intent -- so he says -- not to use it. If it wasn't in the final bill, then why would Obama bother to specifically issue a rather lengthy statement referring to it?

I suspect we still do not know the whole story here.