Military won't detain citizens
Lisa Adams has nothing to fear about the FY2012 NDAA law. She used Section 1031 and 1032 as reference, they were those numbers during legislative process, but written as passed are actually 1021 and 1022.
SEC 1021 paragraph (a) authorizes the military to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)).
(b) Covered persons are:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed or aided the 9-11 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.
The next section does authorize detention by the military without trial until the end of hostilities as authorized by Public Law 107-40.
(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.
Folks, this means that you cannot be held without trial, and especially not by the military.
Section 1022 deals with military detention of foreign al-Quaeda terrorists. These are the people that were and are actively shooting, bombing and otherwise engaged in trying to kill our soldiers (and us). This section also has the presidential waiver clause. Why have a waiver? Because situations change, and definitions may not fit for legal purposes.
(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.
The waiver applies to paragraph 1 of subsection a because that is the place it is located. Because of this fact, the waiver does not apply to subsection b.
Subsection b has this nice couple of paragraphs that say this:
(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.
If the waiver were in the subsection b, or made mention that it applied to a later section, then every one of her accusations would be true. There is no waiver in subsection b, so our rights as citizens remain intact as we know them. There is no ambiguity about this. The military will not detain U.S. citizens.
No fear-mongering, just facts as I understand them.
Unfair deal in increase
My name is Arthur Green, I am 85-plus years old. My wife is 81-plus, she is also in the LTC Care Home in Satanta. The first year it cost me $53.83 a month, last year it cost me 71 cents a month, due to my income. I got a letter from SRS saying that my obligation this year would be $65.21 per month. This was due to the 3.6 percent in cost of living. We got our Social Security checks, I got $40 increase, the wife got $22 increase, they both add up to $62, yet my obligation is $65.21, which is more than the increase that we got. So we are losing $3.21 more than we are getting. We were money ahead by not getting a raise. If this is what they call Obamacare, I do not think I need it.
I am a World War II veteran. I thought we were fighting for a better life. I have paid into Social Security as long as I can remember, which it started in 1935. But I will pay the $65.21 because I want her to have good care and because I love her. And I am not going to sit at home and look at the four walls and die, I plan on keeping busy, doing something. SRS says we cannot have more than $2,000 per month. I am thankful for what the government does pay.
It costs $4,000-plus per month for her to be there, and there is no way I could find a job that would earn that much, at my age, but I still say, why did they give us a raise when they turn right around and take it away, plus $3.21 more. I just wonder how many more old people are getting the same thing done to them. Is this the America we dreamed about retiring in? I dreamed of better ways, this is the way the majority of the people voted and that is the American way. If you read this and agree with me, cut it out, sign it and send it to your Congressman or woman.
ARTHUR G. GREEN,