Replies

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...

The emergency brake in my opinion is still Congress.

NDAA Section 1022 deals with the detention of terrorists caught outside the U.S. And it specifically excludes U.S. Citizens.

SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined—

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement 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.

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.

(e) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

IMO, the U.S. Military cannot act in the U.S. Borders without authorization from the from the President. I just don’t see how your scenario of detention by the military inside of or outside of the U.S. Is legally possible.