Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bhikkhu

(10,718 posts)
52. There is a whole set of procedures and controls - some listed in section 1036:
Sun Dec 18, 2011, 04:06 PM
Dec 2011

PROCEDURES FOR STATUS DETERMINATIONS.
(a) In General- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the procedures for determining the status of persons detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) for purposes of section 1031.

(b) Elements of Procedures- The procedures required by this section shall provide for the following in the case of any unprivileged enemy belligerent who will be held in long-term detention under the law of war pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force:

(1) A military judge shall preside at proceedings for the determination of status of an unprivileged enemy belligerent.

(2) An unprivileged enemy belligerent may, at the election of the belligerent, be represented by military counsel at proceedings for the determination of status of the belligerent.

(c) Report on Modification of Procedures- The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on any modification of the procedures submitted under this section. The report on any such modification shall be so submitted not later than 60 days before the date on which such modification goes into effect.

(d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined- In this section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--

(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and

(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives."

Outrage is preferable to comprehension in the minds of some. MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #1
That's a little rough. I think the Feinstein amendment is inherently confusing Robb Dec 2011 #15
It's poorly written legislation is what it is Aerows Dec 2011 #32
Checks and balances. Robb Dec 2011 #34
Congress is the pack of idiots that came up with this horribly worded nightmare Aerows Dec 2011 #35
The executive branch, and the court. Robb Dec 2011 #37
The executive branch is the front line Aerows Dec 2011 #38
Yeah human rights are nothing to get outraged over SomethingFishy Dec 2011 #29
at least you comprehend that it only applies to foreigners. Some can't even understand that. MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #47
Except it doesn't.. the amendment failed... SomethingFishy Dec 2011 #48
Non-citizens are human beings and deserve to have their human rights respected. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #2
^this n/t LadyHawkAZ Dec 2011 #3
Human rights defined by whom? Freddie Stubbs Dec 2011 #6
The answer is obvious: as defined by the "Commander in Chief", the military's Highest Power. ThomWV Dec 2011 #10
Washington, Jefferson, Franklin... Capitalocracy Dec 2011 #11
The UN Declaration of Human Rights. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #16
Yes indeed. Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #28
Oh gee, the Constitution, The UN, SomethingFishy Dec 2011 #30
+1 Warren Stupidity Dec 2011 #17
Rights exist because we do, not because government grants them to us. RC Dec 2011 #19
Yes! SammyWinstonJack Dec 2011 #21
Two concerns: The Doctor. Dec 2011 #4
Not to mention the fact that it MANDATES detention of non-citizens, but ALLOWS detention of citizens Capitalocracy Dec 2011 #7
The bill gives the President the discretion to do the same to U.S. citizens Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #5
I don't see how thats possible with this language. phleshdef Dec 2011 #9
From the ACLU... Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #13
But that language is in 1031. Robb Dec 2011 #14
Yes, but 1302 addresses presidential powers under AUMF Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #27
The Fourth Circuit's Padilla ruling did not overturn the Supreme Court. Robb Dec 2011 #33
Padilla was kicked back to the Circuit on a technicality. His case has never been decided by the Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #40
You understand Hamdi was a US citizen, right? Robb Dec 2011 #41
Captured in Afghanistan in battle and the SC decision rested on his circumstances Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #42
No, where Hamdi was captured wasn't relevant. Robb Dec 2011 #45
The ACLU is apparently ignoring the fact that existing law already covers that. phleshdef Dec 2011 #22
Currently, existing law does include indefinite detention. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #25
I consider it a matter put into question by things like the AUMF. phleshdef Dec 2011 #31
"Indefinite detention" is a part of "the law of war", always qualified by bhikkhu Dec 2011 #54
"Yes, let me explain it in words that even a 5-year-old can understand … Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #8
Unless the President decides DocMac Dec 2011 #12
So? People from other nations have rights too. Quantess Dec 2011 #18
we are bullies. nt abelenkpe Dec 2011 #20
I don't understand this bill. polly7 Dec 2011 #23
It gives the authority to detain people involved with the Taliban and Al-qaeda only bhikkhu Dec 2011 #50
Not an expert on Geneva by any means, but I'm pretty certain that coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #51
There is a whole set of procedures and controls - some listed in section 1036: bhikkhu Dec 2011 #52
1036 (a) looks to me to be a key element, as it requires coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #57
I think the main problem is the difficulty of seeing an endpoint bhikkhu Dec 2011 #58
Visitors to the US, that part. Its kind of a dickmove to shitcan their human rights. Erose999 Dec 2011 #24
Habeus corpus and the right to a speedy trial are soooo....1787. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #26
What part of NO ONE should face indefinite detention without a trial don't YOU understand? Matariki Dec 2011 #36
We need better people in Congress Aerows Dec 2011 #39
What part of "human" don't you understand? MedleyMisty Dec 2011 #43
Non-citizens are still human beings. proud2BlibKansan Dec 2011 #44
Yup. Hell Hath No Fury Dec 2011 #46
No authority is given, unless the person is supporting the Taliban or Al-qaeda bhikkhu Dec 2011 #49
Stupid argument Spider Jerusalem Dec 2011 #53
And what part of this violates both NATIONAL nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #55
Oh, I see! If it only happens to dem furrin brown people, it's A-OK!!! backscatter712 Dec 2011 #56
I understand that my non-citizen relatives will no longer have rights if they visited and were Pachamama Dec 2011 #59
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What part of non-citizen ...»Reply #52