by Sarah Schauerte
Late this week, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees reached an agreement on the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It looks like the bill will be wrapped up by Christmas, but not everyone is happy with the packaging (double pun intended).
As approved by the committees, the text of the latest iteration of the bill is derived from H.R. 1960, which passed the House on June 14 by a vote of 315-108 and S. 1197, a version passed by a Senate committee by a vote of 23-3, later that same day.
The NDAA contains many important budget provisions, but its scope isn’t limited merely to budgetary matters. For two years, the NDAA included provisions that purported to authorize the president of the United States to deploy the U.S. military to apprehend and indefinitely detain any person (including an American citizen) who he believes “represent[s] an enduring security threat to the United States.” These provisions were heatedly criticized as unconstitutional.
Regardless of these voiced concerns, and promises made by certain politicians, the language of the NDAA continues to potentially place every citizen of the United States within the universe ofl “covered persons” due to the scope and definition of this term. Also, Section 1071 of the version of the 2014 NDAA approved by the House and Senate committees expands on the scope of surveillance established by the Patriot Act and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). For example, Section 1071(a) authorizes the secretary of defense to “establish a center to be known as the ‘Conflict Records Research Center.’” The center’s task would be to compile a “digital research database including translations and to facilitate research and analysis of records captured from countries, organizations, and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.”
This language has caught a lot of heat from various well-known rights advocates, including libertarian icon Ron Paul and the People Against the NDAA (PANDA). Others, however, aren’t too concerned, citing the need to enhance national security measures due to the risk of internal terrorist attacks. The Boston marathon bombers come to mind. We Americans balk at the ideas of surveillance and infringements on our privacy, but if we have nothing to hide, would these provisions affect us? Legislators appear to think not, or at least not enough to justify omitting them from the 2014 NDAA.
It’s also worth noting that one high-profile amendment to the bill won’t be included. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., had hoped to force a vote on a proposal to remove sexual assault cases from the military chain of command. That plan had won support from some unlikely allies – including from some of the Senate’s most conservative members – but it was strongly opposed by many top Pentagon officials. In the end, it was a no-go. The bill does, however, overhaul the way the military handles allegations of sexual assault, making it a crime to retaliate against those who report sex crimes in the ranks, among other new reforms.
The House and Senate Armed Services Committees have reached an agreement on the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/17154-congress-rushing-to-approve-2014-ndaa
___________________________________________________________-
Overview, this legislation originated in the “Armed Services’ Committee, which oversees Military base construction, period. In fact ‘Constitutionally’, there is no such entity as the “Armed Forces”, with any department created by Congress, there has to be a legislative body to oversee it, you will not find a “Armed Forces’ committee in Congress. The “Armed Services”, is the construction division of the Commodity Credit Corporation, created by the Federal Reserve. Listed below is section 1701 of the legislation, the stated authority is Title 10 section 426. The position of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence was established in 2002 by Public Law 107–314. *Pub. L. 107–314, div. A ,is for Monitoring of Implementation of 1979 Agreement Between the United States and China on Cooperation in Science and Technology, listed in Title 22 U.S.C Foreign Relations.
Congress stopped legislating for the states a 100 years ago.
___________________________________________________
SEC. 1071. ENHANCEMENT OF CAPACITY OF THE UNITED
4 STATES GOVERNMENT TO ANALYZE CAPTURED RECORDS.
6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 21 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 426 the following new section:
http://ARMEDSERVICES.HOUSE.GOV/INDEX.CFM/FILES/SERVE?FILE_ID=215AC26C-A0E7-4B02-A63C-DD9D800AF2DB
________________________________________
10 U.S. CODE PART I – ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
10 U.S. CODE § 426 – INTEGRATION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, AND RECONNAISSANCE CAPABILITIES
http://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/USCODE/TEXT/10/42
CLICK ON NOTES
“(5) The position of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence was established in 2002 by Public Law 107–314 [see 10 U.S.C. 137] in order to facilitate resolution of the challenges to achieving an integrated intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance structure in the Department of Defense to meet such 21st century requirements.
“(b) Goal.—It shall be a goal of the Department of Defense to fully integrate the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities and coordinate the developmental activities of the military departments, intelligence agencies of the Department of Defense, and relevant combatant commands as those departments, agencies, and commands transform their intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems to meet current and future needs.”
PUBLIC LAW 107-314 SECT.A SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
22 USC § 6901 – FINDINGS (FOREIGN RELATIONS)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/6901?quicktabs_8=2#quicktabs-8
Source
(Pub. L. 106–286, div. B, title II, § 202,Oct. 10, 2000, 114 Stat. 892.)
Short Title of 2003 Amendment
Pub. L. 108–7, div. P, § 1,Feb. 20, 2003, 117 Stat. 552, provided that: “This division [amending section 7002 of this title and enacting provisions set out as notes under section 7002 of this title] may be cited as the ‘United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission’.”
Short Title
Pub. L. 106–286, div. B, title II, § 201(a),Oct. 10, 2000, 114 Stat. 891, provided that: “This division [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the ‘U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000’.”
Transfer of Functions
PUBLIC LAW 107-314 div. A
Monitoring of Implementation of 1979 Agreement Between the United States and China on Cooperation in Science and Technology
*Pub. L. 107–314, div. A, title XII, § 1207,Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2666, provided that:
“(a) In General.—The Secretary of State shall—
“(1) monitor the implementation of the Agreement specified in subsection (c);
“(2) keep a systematic account of the protocols to the Agreement;
“(3) coordinate the activities of all agencies of the United States Government that carry out cooperative activities under the Agreement; and
“(4) ensure that all activities conducted under the Agreement comply with applicable laws and regulations concerning the transfer of militarily sensitive technologies and dual-use technologies.
“(c) Agreement Defined.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘Agreement’ means the agreement between the United States and the People’s Republic of China known as the ‘Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on Cooperation in Science and Technology’, signed in Washington on January 31, 1979, and its protocols.
“(E) A determination by the Secretary of Defense, developed with the assistance of the Director of Central Intelligence, of the extent to which the activities conducted under the Agreement have enhanced the military and defense industrial base of the People’s Republic of China, and an assessment of the effect that projected activities under the Agreement for the next two years, including the transfer of technology and know-how, could have on the economic and military capabilities of the People’s Republic of China.
“(F) An assessment by the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce of—
“(i) the extent to which programs or activities carried out under the Agreement provide access to technology, information, or know-how that could enhance military capabilities of the People’s Republic of China; and
“(ii) the extent to which those programs or activities are carried out in compliance with export control laws and regulations of the United States, especially those laws and regulations governing so-called ‘deemed exports’.
“(G) Any recommendations of the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, or Director of Central Intelligence for improving the monitoring of the activities of the Joint Commission established under the Agreement.