[RightFighter]

The original article is wrong. Please review the text of sections 1031 and 1032 below and tell me where you find a right to detain or execute anyone.

This is the entire text of Section 1031:

SEC. 1031. COUNTERTERRORISM OPERATIONAL BRIEFING REQUIREMENT.
(a) BRIEFINGS REQUIRED.—Beginning not later than March 1,
2012, the Secretary of Defense shall provide to the congressional defense committees quarterly briefings outlining Department of Defense counterterrorism operations and related activities involving special operations forces.
(b) ELEMENTS.—Each briefing under subsection (a) shall include each of the following:
(1) A global update on activity within each geographic
combatant command.
(2) An overview of authorities and legal issues including
limitations.
H. R. 1540—274
(3) An outline of interagency activities and initiatives.
(4) Any other matters the Secretary considers appropriate.

This is the entire text of section 1032:

SEC. 1032. NATIONAL SECURITY PLANNING GUIDANCE TO DENY SAFE
HAVENS TO AL-QAEDA AND ITS VIOLENT EXTREMIST AFFILIATES.
(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to improve interagency strategic planning and execution to more effectively integrate efforts to deny safe havens and strengthen at-risk states to further the goals of the National Security Strategy related to the disruption, dismantlement, and defeat of al-Qaeda and its violent
extremist affiliates.
(b) NATIONAL SECURITY PLANNING GUIDANCE.—
(1) GUIDANCE REQUIRED.—The President shall issue classified
or unclassified national security planning guidance in support of objectives stated in the national security strategy report submitted to Congress by the President pursuant to section 108 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404a)to deny safe havens to al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates and to strengthen at-risk states. Such guidance shall serve as the strategic plan that governs United States and coordinated international efforts to enhance the capacity of governmental and nongovernmental entities to work toward the goal of eliminating the ability of al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates to establish or maintain safe havens.
(2) CONTENTS OF GUIDANCE.—The guidance required under
paragraph (1) shall include each of the following:
(A) A prioritized list of specified geographic areas that
the President determines are necessary to address and
an explicit discussion and list of the criteria or rationale
used to prioritize the areas on the list, including a discussion of the conditions that would hamper the ability of the United States to strengthen at-risk states or other
entities in such areas.
(B) For each specified geographic area, a description,
analysis, and discussion of the core problems and contributing issues that allow or could allow al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates to use the area as a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks, engage in propaganda, or raise funds and other support, including any
ongoing or potential radicalization of the population, or
to use the area as a key transit route for personnel,
weapons, funding, or other support.
(C) A list of short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals
for each specified geographic area, prioritized by importance.
(D) A description of the role and mission of each Federal
department and agency involved in executing the guidance,
including the Departments of Defense, Justice, Treasury, and State and the Agency for International Development.
(E) A description of gaps in United States capabilities
to meet the goals listed pursuant to subparagraph (C),
and the extent to which those gaps can be met through
coordination with nongovernmental, international, or private
sector organizations, entities, or companies.
(3) REVIEW AND UPDATE OF GUIDANCE.—The President shall
review and update the guidance required under paragraph
(1) as necessary. Any such review shall address each of the
following:
(A) The overall progress made toward achieving the
goals listed pursuant to paragraph (2)(C), including an
overall assessment of the progress in denying a safe haven
to al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates.
(B) The performance of each Federal department and
agency involved in executing the guidance.
(C) The performance of the unified country team and
appropriate combatant command, or in the case of a crossborder effort, country teams in the area and the appropriate combatant command.
(D) Any addition to, deletion from, or change in the
order of the prioritized list maintained pursuant to paragraph
(2)(A).
(4) SPECIFIED GEOGRAPHIC AREA DEFINED.—In this subsection,
the term ‘‘specified geographic area’’ means any country, subnational territory, or region—
(A) that serves or may potentially serve as a safe
haven for al-Qaeda or a violent extremist affiliate of al-
Qaeda—
(i) from which to plan and launch attacks, engage in propaganda, or raise funds and other support; or
(ii) for use as a key transit route for personnel, weapons, funding, or other support; and
(B) over which one or more governments or entities
exert insufficient governmental or security control to deny
al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates the ability
to establish a large scale presence.

[Yosemitest]

First of all, your "text of the Bill" is wrong.
I don't know where you got your text, but it AIN'T Pages 426 thru page 432 of S. 1867.

You missed it. Read the original article again.

"One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens.
The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation.
That spin is facially ridiculous.
The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated.
The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights.
Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial,
the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.
The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military.
The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031,
which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial."

Now, let's make this REAL SIMPLE.

You're looking for a wavier THAT AIN"T THERE!!!
Text of Pages 426 thru page 432 of S. 1867.
Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the
Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person
who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described
in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code
(as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country,
or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President
or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, 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.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this
section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of
subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(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 1031 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co
ordination 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 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise
described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.


(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the
Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if
the Secretary 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.

(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
(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 session which is ongoing at the
time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.
(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) 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.

---

Read this:

Regime Grabs Power to Detain US Citizens
January 03, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Yeah, and I can't believe that nobody's talking about that, either:
The thing Obama signed on New Year's Eve, the new Defense Authorization Act.
I don't know if people don't know what's in this or if other things take precedence.
Well, it is being reported because I saw it. I saw it reported.
Obama signed this thing, the new Defense Authorization Act on New Year's Eve.
Folks, you know what this thing does?
It allows the United States military to detain anybody for no reason!
They don't even have to charge you.
I mean, this is specified. This is not the Patriot Act.
This is way beyond. This is total authoritarianism.
This is the kind of stuff that exists in Third World banana republics.
The government can detain anybody! All they have to do...
They actually don't have to do anything.

They just have to say they suspect you of terrorism.

They don't have to prove it, they don't have to have any evidence, they can charge you.
They can put you away in a jail, you are not allowed a lawyer, you are not allowed habeas corpus.
It's the most amazing thing.
Obama even issued a signing statement with it in which he said:
Don't worry, I'm not going to do this.
Don't worry, I'm not gonna do it.
Well, he can, as can anybody in the military, as can any future president.
They can just decide to detain you. For no reason. I mean, literally no reason.
Where is the left on this?
Where are the civil libertarians?
This is...
You can talk about Bush and the Patriot Act all you want if you're a leftist and a Democrat.
Where are you people?
This is the biggest affront to the whole notion of civil rights that I can recall.
There is a column. Jonathan Turley, who is a legal beagle and a guest on TV shows.
He's a law professor at Georgetown or George Washington, I forget which.

He posted a column on his blog, and the UK Guardian asked for permission to publish it.
So it's on their website.
He basically says what I just said to you in terms of describing what this is.
The reason it was signed into law was so that the military could be funded.
The old argument was,
"If you don't sign this the military won't get funded."Nobody stood up against this.
It was the end of the year, everybody wants outta town to get home for the holidays or what have you.
But there it is.
Now, George W. Bush never even contemplated anything like this, and nobody's talking about it.
You can say,
"Well, Rush, come on.
They're not gonna just start detaining people left and right.
You know they're only gonna use this for people they suspect of being terrorists."

Well, how they gonna define "terrorism"?
If you are a liberal Democrat politician might you think that what happens on Fox is terrorism? (pause)
Might you? You know how wacky some of these people are.
So, anyway, it's out there.
It was signed on New Year's Eve, with a signing statement that said from Obama:
Don't worry, I'm not gonna do this.
That was his signing statement, essentially.
I'm paraphrasing the signing statements but that's essentially what he said.
And this from Business Insider.
"The United States authorities have offered to lift the threat of legal action against 11 Swiss banks in exchange for information."
This is part of a very long story.
"The justice department's doing everything it can to get the names of Americans who have Swiss bank accounts."

The Department of Justice damn near busted the United Bank of Switzerland over this a few years back
and now they're going after other Swiss banks.
The lawyers at the DOJ don't kid around. They're basically saying:
Give us the names of American account holders or we will sue the crap out of you.
So the IRS and the Department of Justice are now -- again, a Business Insider story -- grabbing new powers in the hunt for revenue.
There's two stories here.
The first is the Switzerland bank story where the DOJ is telling Swiss banks:
You tell us or we're gonna sue you until the cows come home,
and these banks are giving up the information.
Which, the coin of the realm in Swiss banking was privacy.
They're giving it up.
If you have a Swiss back the, the Department of Justice, Eric Holder, is going to learn about it.

They're gonna find out if you are doing something they don't like.
Not necessarily illegal.
Don't forget, now, they could say that what you're doing is aiding and abetting terrorism and detain you,
based on what they find in your bank account.
"A federal district court judge in California has given the IRS permission to serve a John Doe summons on the California State Board of Equalization"
that's the state IRS
"demanding the names of residents who transferred property to their children or grandchildren for little or no money from 2005 to 2010.
The IRS has used John Doe summons to seek lists of American taxpayers' unreported offshore accounts at Swiss bank USB and the HSBC bank in India.
These techniques have worked well in Switzerland, the hardworking folks at DOJ, IRS are now bringing them to California.
That means that the IRS can look at anybody's real estate transactions.

"With John Doe warrants they can go fishing and snooping in whatever they like."
Now, again, I'm reading this from Business Insider which is a website.
Think of it what you will.
"The country starved for revenue.
The outfit that's charged with collecting that revenue has an army of tough minded lawyers behind it.
It will have the power to turn over stones as it pleases.
In the end, this effort will raise some additional revenue, it'll scare the heck out of a few people as well;
some people will cheer it.
I see the John Doe warrants as a big and dangerous step and a very slippery slope," writes the writer here,
"sure won't do much for Uncle Sam's image but a lot of people aren't gonna care."

In fact the entire Democrat Party voting base is gonna be encouraging this. The entire Occupy Wall Streeters.
Go get a John Doe summons and find every transaction of everybody that's got any money
and find out if they're giving money away to their kids or whatever or putting their real estate in their kids' names or what have you.
As far as the Defense Authorization Act,
"According to Senator Carl Levin, it was Obama who required indefinite detainment that included US citizens."
Remember, we have killed an American citizen with a drone. Al-Awlaki.
We've done that. He was an American citizen.

"According to Senator Levin, it was Obama who required that his powers to be able to detain anybody for no reason, include US citizens.
The original bill was focused on enemies of America, terrorists specifically.
Levin said there was language in the bill to exempt US citizens but Obama asked for that language to be removed. Lindsey Graham has said the same thing, according to the Congressional Record."
Lindsey Graham said,
"Why did we take out the language Senator Levin wanted me to put in about an American citizen could not be held indefinitely if caught in the homeland?
The administration asked us to do that."

So while Obama's out there trying to blame this on Congress and having a signing statement saying,
"Well, you know, I'm never gonna do this,"
it was Obama who required the language be in the legislation.
This was on New Year's Eve.
So it's like four days ago that this was signed,
of course it's a weekend, and not a whole lot of this is being reported, certainly not being discussed.
I'm telling you what's in the bill
and I'm telling you what's a in the signing statement --
and, of course, the message is gonna be,
"Well, wait a minute now. Why are you concerned?
If you're not doing any anything wrong, you'll not show up on anybody's radar."
Well, let's define doing something "wrong."
You live in Venezuela and you say something about Hugo Chavez gaining weight while on chemo
and you don't believe he's really got cancer and you could end up in jail.
That's what dictators do.

END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links


• The NDAA's Historic Assault on American liberty - Jonathan Turley
  
• Business insider: The IRS & DOJ Are Grabbing New Powers In The Hunt For Revenue
  
  
• Digital Journal: Obama Demanded NDAA Include Americans for Indefinite Detainment
  
  

---

Thanks Rush.
Thanks to Michael Savage for bringing this up on his Radio Show Monday Night on "The Savage Nation".

Now RightFighter ... contemplate THAT for a spell.