{"id":9657,"date":"2012-01-08T12:21:32","date_gmt":"2012-01-08T17:21:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/?p=9657"},"modified":"2012-01-08T12:31:33","modified_gmt":"2012-01-08T17:31:33","slug":"2012-national-defense-authorization-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/2012\/01\/08\/2012-national-defense-authorization-act\/","title":{"rendered":"2012 National Defense Authorization Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

I used my previous post How America And The Mainstream Media Got Breitbarted On NDAA<\/strong><\/a> as a defense of Obama against some of the comments in The Raw Story<\/em> article Obama pledges to exempt Americans from indefinite detention law<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

I received quite a bit of pushback from my post.\u00a0 One of the comments begins:<\/p>\n

Have we been Breitbarted?\u00a0 NO.\u00a0 THE NDAA IS DANGEROUS TO EVERYONE-<\/p>\n

To borrow from a fellow blogger’s comments from politicususa.com<\/a>:<\/p>\n

“…simply wrong. It does, absolutely, apply to U.S. citizens. I\u2019ve read it, here\u2019s a breakdown of the logical structure of it:\u00a0 …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Rather than this commenter quoting another commenter explaining it to me and then me explaining it to you, why don’t I give you a link to the document and let you read it yourself. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

The bill is 926 pages long, so I will ease your burden a bit by extracting the relevant sections indicating the pages in the document.\u00a0 You are free to read the original document for more context than what I have extracted here.<\/p>\n

p 1\r\n\r\n112TH CONGRESS\r\n1ST SESSION S. 1867\r\nAN ACT\r\n\r\nTo authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military\r\nactivities of the Department of Defense, for military\r\nconstruction, and for defense activities of the Department\r\nof Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths\r\nfor such fiscal year, and for other purposes.\r\n\r\np 426\r\n\r\n15 Subtitle D\u2014Detainee Matters\r\n16 SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED\r\n17 FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN\r\n18 COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU-\r\n19 THORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.\r\n20 (a) IN GENERAL.\u2014Congress affirms that the author-\r\n21 ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate\r\n22 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military\r\n23 Force (Public Law 107\u201340) includes the authority for the\r\n24 Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered per-\r\n\r\np 427 \r\n\r\n 1 sons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition\r\n 2 under the law of war.\r\n 3 (b) COVERED PERSONS.\u2014A covered person under\r\n 4 this section is any person as follows:\r\n 5 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com-\r\n 6 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred\r\n 7 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon-\r\n 8 sible for those attacks.\r\n 9 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially\r\n10 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces\r\n11 that are engaged in hostilities against the United\r\n12 States or its coalition partners, including any person\r\n13 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly\r\n14 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy\r\n15 forces.\r\n16 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.\u2014The dis-\r\n17 position of a person under the law of war as described\r\n18 in subsection (a) may include the following:\r\n19 (1) Detention under the law of war without\r\n20 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the\r\n21 Authorization for Use of Military Force.\r\n22 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United\r\n23 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis-\r\n24 sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111\u2013\r\n25 84)).\r\n\r\np 428\r\n\r\n 1 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or\r\n 2 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.\r\n 3 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the\r\n 4 person\u2019s country of origin, any other foreign coun-\r\n 5 try, or any other foreign entity.\r\n 6 (d) CONSTRUCTION.\u2014Nothing in this section is in-\r\n 7 tended to limit or expand the authority of the President\r\n 8 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military\r\n 9 Force.\r\n10 (e) AUTHORITIES.\u2014Nothing in this section shall be\r\n11 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to\r\n12 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident\r\n13 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are\r\n14 captured or arrested in the United States.\r\n15 (f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.\u2014\r\n16 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress\r\n17 regarding the application of the authority described in this\r\n18 section, including the organizations, entities, and individ-\r\n19 uals considered to be \u2018\u2018covered persons\u2019\u2019 for purposes of\r\n20 subsection (b)(2).\r\n21 SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.\r\n22 (a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF\r\n23 WAR.\u2014\r\n24 (1) IN GENERAL.\u2014Except as provided in para-\r\n25 graph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States\r\n\r\np 429 \r\n\r\n 1 shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who\r\n 2 is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by\r\n 3 the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public\r\n 4 Law 107\u201340) in military custody pending disposition\r\n 5 under the law of war.\r\n 6 (2) COVERED PERSONS.\u2014The requirement in\r\n 7 paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose de-\r\n 8 tention is authorized under section 1031 who is de-\r\n 9 termined\u2014\r\n10 (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-\r\n11 Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co-\r\n12 ordination with or pursuant to the direction of\r\n13 al-Qaeda; and\r\n14 (B) to have participated in the course of\r\n15 planning or carrying out an attack or attempted\r\n16 attack against the United States or its coalition\r\n17 partners.\r\n18 (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.\u2014For\r\n19 purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a per-\r\n20 son under the law of war has the meaning given in\r\n21 section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise\r\n22 described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be\r\n23 made unless consistent with the requirements of sec-\r\n24 tion 1033.\r\n\r\np 430 \r\n\r\n 1 (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.\u2014The\r\n 2 Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the\r\n 3 Secretary of State and the Director of National In-\r\n 4 telligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if\r\n 5 the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in\r\n 6 writing that such a waiver is in the national security\r\n 7 interests of the United States.\r\n 8 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS\r\n 9 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.\u2014\r\n10 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.\u2014The require-\r\n11 ment to detain a person in military custody under\r\n12 this section does not extend to citizens of the United\r\n13 States.\r\n14 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.\u2014The require-\r\n15 ment to detain a person in military custody under\r\n16 this section does not extend to a lawful resident\r\n17 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct\r\n18 taking place within the United States, except to the\r\n19 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United\r\n20 States.\r\n<\/pre>\n
Before I can understand this language myself, I think I am going to have to go back and put in hypertext links on references to other sections so that I can figure out exactly what words qualify what sections.  Any lawyers in the audience care to write a concordance?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I used my previous post How America And The Mainstream Media Got Breitbarted On NDAA as a defense of Obama against some of the comments in The Raw Story article Obama pledges to exempt Americans from indefinite detention law. I received quite a bit of pushback from my post.\u00a0 One of the comments begins: Have […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[166],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-9657","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-stevegsposts","7":"czr-hentry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9657","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9657"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9657\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9661,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9657\/revisions\/9661"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9657"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9657"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9657"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}