On December 12th, Occupy Ogden gathered for a protest to call out on Orrin Hatch for his support of the National Defense Authorization Act, or bill 1867. It wasn't against the bill as a whole, but specifically section 1031. They marched with signs, holding up a tent (proclaimed symbol of the Occupy movement), and informed passerby's of Occupy Ogden, and what the NDAA means to the common person. A few protestors even went into the Federal building to speak with supporters of the bill, explaining their frustration.
Why is this bill coming under fire?
In Senate Bill 1867, it outlines the criteria in who can or can't be identified as a terrorist. Being called the National Defense Authorization Act, it would only make sense that there should be anti-terrorism measures put in place, correct? You might be asking yourself "What's so wrong with this?".
In section 1032, it defines the criteria for who can be arrested without charged, detained, and placed into a military prison such as Guantanamo Bay. The criterea are as follows:
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 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.
APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENN 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.
What does section 1031 say? Nothing. It's not what it does say, it's what it doesn't say. And what it doesn't say is that is scaring people, which is: "We can not detain United States citizens". Section 1032 says it, but 1031 does not. Why not?
The bill passed with flying colors. 93 senators voted yes, 7 senators voted no. The 7 who voted no only did so due to their concern over section 1031.
Voter turnout for S.B. 1867, blue shows "yae" votes, red shows "nae" votes.
How does this bill effect me?
This bill gives the United States government the power to detain anyone who they feel is a threat to national security. We're not just talking about al-Qaeda here. The United States has deemed many activist groups (animal rights, environmental, political) as homegrown terrorist groups, even though these groups claim peaceful intent. These groups could come under fire should the president feel the need. Anyone involved may be detained without charge and trial, and placed in an undisclosed location. Should they want to dispute the charges, their trial will be held in a military court with a military appointed lawyer. And that's if their dispute is agreed with in the first place.
Many feel this bill is unconstitutional, and goes against the founding principals of our country.
What do you think?
Occupy Ogden outside the Federal Building
Why is this bill coming under fire?
In Senate Bill 1867, it outlines the criteria in who can or can't be identified as a terrorist. Being called the National Defense Authorization Act, it would only make sense that there should be anti-terrorism measures put in place, correct? You might be asking yourself "What's so wrong with this?".
In section 1032, it defines the criteria for who can be arrested without charged, detained, and placed into a military prison such as Guantanamo Bay. The criterea are as follows:
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 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.
APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENN 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.
What does section 1031 say? Nothing. It's not what it does say, it's what it doesn't say. And what it doesn't say is that is scaring people, which is: "We can not detain United States citizens". Section 1032 says it, but 1031 does not. Why not?
The bill passed with flying colors. 93 senators voted yes, 7 senators voted no. The 7 who voted no only did so due to their concern over section 1031.
Voter turnout for S.B. 1867, blue shows "yae" votes, red shows "nae" votes.
How does this bill effect me?
This bill gives the United States government the power to detain anyone who they feel is a threat to national security. We're not just talking about al-Qaeda here. The United States has deemed many activist groups (animal rights, environmental, political) as homegrown terrorist groups, even though these groups claim peaceful intent. These groups could come under fire should the president feel the need. Anyone involved may be detained without charge and trial, and placed in an undisclosed location. Should they want to dispute the charges, their trial will be held in a military court with a military appointed lawyer. And that's if their dispute is agreed with in the first place.
Many feel this bill is unconstitutional, and goes against the founding principals of our country.
What do you think?
