This might help you.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42143.pdf
“Section 1021 does not expressly clarify whether U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens may be determined to be “covered persons.” The potential application of an earlier version of Section 1021 found in S. 1867 (in that bill numbered Section 1031) to U.S. citizens and other persons within the United States was the subject of significant floor debate. An amendment that would have expressly barred U.S. citizens from long-term military detention on account of enemy belligerent status was considered and rejected. Ultimately, an amendment was adopted that added the following proviso: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authority relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”
“This language, which remains in the final version of the act, along with a separate clause which provides that nothing in Section 1021 “is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force,” makes clear that the provision is not intended to either expand or limit the executive’s existing authority to detain U.S. citizens and resident aliens, as well as other persons captured in the United States. Such detentions have been rare and subject to substantial controversy, without achieving definitive resolution in the courts. While the Supreme Court in Hamdi recognized that persons captured while fighting U.S. forces in Afghanistan could be militarily detained in the conflict with Al Qaeda potentially for the duration of hostilities, regardless of their citizenship, the circumstances in which persons captured in the United States may be subject to preventive military detention have not been definitively adjudicated. Section 1021 does not attempt to clarify the circumstances in which a U.S. citizen, lawful resident alien, or other person captured within the United States may be held as an enemy belligerent in the conflict with Al Qaeda. Consequently, if the executive branch decides to hold such a person under the detention authority affirmed in Section 1021, it is left to the courts to decide whether Congress meant to authorize such detention when it enacted the AUMF in 2001.”
Thanks. For all our differences I really do appreciate that you are mostly willing to engage with the actual content, and bring the applicable sources into the conversation.
I think that was the same document I was reading late last night. Basically they said journalists who attempted to have the issue clarified in the courts lacked standing because they had not yet been captured and sent to Gitmo. So the court reserves the right to decide what’s lawful however they want depending on circumstances at the time - like who is President...
I was going to look up the NDAA itself this morning, to get a better idea of what it actually says, since the courts won’t answer any questions about it.
What I did gather from what I read last night was that it matters greatly as to where a person is captured - whether in the US or outside the US. It’s a different thing if Obama is in Russia, for instance, telling Medvedev that he will have “flexibility” after the election. Or if he had been in Egypt rather than in DC when he told the Egyptian ambassador that he was and is a Muslim who supports the Muslim agenda and would get working on that once he passed ACA... The big difference being that it would be the military who INITIALLY captures somebody in a foreign country, as opposed to civil law enforcement or DHS who captures somebody in the US.
I’ll have to dig through this some more. The Denise Lind decision in Lakin’s case was that specific combat orders are not dependent on approval by the CINC. For instance, the lawfulness of orders carrying out a “surge” don’t depend on a Constitutionally-authorized, AUF-authorized POTUS deciding to conduct a surge.
If that’s the case then the military capturing a particular enemy combatant outside the US would not have to be specifically ordered by the CINC either. And actually, them capturing somebody inside the US and detaining them in Gitmo wouldn’t have to be ordered either - it’s just that when the courts decide whether the detainment is Constitutional, after months of legal maneuvers to stretch out the issue, it would be more likely to stand. But the immediate purpose of preventing an attack by that person would have been served.
But I probably shouldn’t even be saying anything because I haven’t processed all the information. When I first spoke out I thought this stuff was already clear and somebody could point it out to me. But it isn’t clear and until you joined the conversation nobody was willing to address the meat of what I was talking about.
Extortion 17 is really important, because if Joe Biden leaked the identity of the SEAL unit which conducted the Bin Laden raid so that Obama’s DOD could trade a couple dozen of our SEALs in return for the Bin Laden raid.... that is direct cooperation with the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda who were responsible for the 9-11-01 attacks. There would be absolutely NO question that Obama and Biden are enemy combatants under the NDAA if that was what happened.
If the State Dept correlated their Benghazi excuse with the Muslim Brotherhood - which is a real possibility given that the attackers in Egypt who flew the AQ flag over the US Embassy there on 9-11-12 told people not to shoot because they had been sent by the Egyptian guy that the Obama regime conspired with the MB to install in Egypt -Morsi (I forgot his name briefly). And if the person who created the video that the Obama regime used as an excuse actually did so at the orders of the Obama regime.... then this is collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood AND with the Benghazi attackers to make an excuse for this attack. If that is the case then - again - there would be no question that Obama and others in his regime are enemy combatants under the definitions of the NDAA. (Tiger, I’m pinging you because you have good info regarding how that video happened and may have something you’d like to add here.)
If Lois Lerner gave Obama’s brother Malik tax-exempt status for his MB group and if that group was known to be supporting AQ, then Lerner would fit the NDAA’s definition for an enemy combatant. And if she did it because Obama told her to, then he also fits the definition for that instance as well.
Obama negotiating to set free the Gitmo 5 (supposedly in exchange for Bergdahl, even though Obama had been talking about releasing those 5 even without Bergdahl involved, IIRC) is actually letting go at least one of the people who masterminded the 9-11-01 attack. I don’t know how ANYBODY gets off being called an enemy combatant as defined by the NDAA on that one... If there was no threat made to Bergdahl and Obama refused to inform Congress, then it is a LAW-BREAKING act of belligerence in support of operations by at least one person who actually planned the 9-11-01 attack. How the heck do you get around that? And the MILITARY knows whether there was a threat made to Bergdahl. They know if Obama was a proven enemy combatant in that particular case of treason...
The whole border thing - if Obama and Holder are aware that Al Qaeda operatives are allied with the Mexican drug cartels and yet they armed that same drug cartel and sued AZ to keep them from protecting the border from entry by these cartels and their AQ allies, that means Eric Holder fits the NDAA definition of an enemy combatant...
Every stinkin’ thing that this regime has done needs to be evaluated according to NDAA definitions in this way, because the Muslim terrorist enemies of the US are thriving and gloating, and every action by this regime has AIDED them either directly or indirectly.
When the D’s in the Senate consider that they will ALWAYS vote the party line, they better realize that they themselves could be classified as enemy combatants and/or traitors according to the Constitutional definition, for giving material aid and comfort to the enemy combatants Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, etc...
It is WAY past time for Congress to get serious about NATIONAL SECURITY, which is laid at THEIR feet. If they shirk national security in favor of political schmoozing, then THEY are traitors, as defined in the Constitution.
I think everybody in that DC cesspool needs to be reminded of all that. BEFORE the desperately-flailing Obama takes out a lot of Americans for political purposes, to stage a Reichstag fire...
A LOT of Americans have the gnawing sense that we have an out-of-control, lawless POTUS who always just happens to support our enemies and throw US to the dogs. And because Congress has a 9-10 mentality as if national security takes a back-seat to sheer politics, we are desperately looking for a way to stop the guy before he drives the nation over the cliff. He’s speeding toward the cliff and the political players have disabled the brakes. We’re all unsettled, as well we should.
Who is the emergency brake?
We all want to know. I don’t believe our Founders made this car without an emergency brake.
Is it the chiefs of staff who are to be involved in authorizing the actual ARREST of a POTUS who has committed acts of war/attacks against this nation? Is it the military who needs to catch Obama and others in the regime when they are outside the US?
Who is the emergency brake? ‘Cause the edge is getting closer and closer, and we’re accelerating towards it...