Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama rescinds veto on NDAA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obama rescinds veto on NDAA

    Americans face Guantánamo detention after Obama climbdown | World news | The Guardian

    Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

    Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end".

    The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.

    The legislation's supporters in Congress say it simply codifies existing practice, such as the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists at Guantánamo Bay. But the law's critics describe it as a draconian piece of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to include US citizens arrested in their own country.

    "It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent."

    There was heated debate in both houses of Congress on the legislation, requiring that suspects with links to Islamist foreign terrorist organisations arrested in the US, who were previously held by the FBI or other civilian law enforcement agencies, now be handed to the military and held indefinitely without trial.

    The law applies to anyone "who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces".

    Senator Lindsey Graham said the extraordinary measures were necessary because terrorism suspects were wholly different to regular criminals.

    "We're facing an enemy, not a common criminal organisation, who will do anything and everything possible to destroy our way of life," he said. "When you join al-Qaida you haven't joined the mafia, you haven't joined a gang. You've joined people who are bent on our destruction and who are a military threat."

    Other senators supported the new powers on the grounds that al-Qaida was fighting a war inside the US and that its followers should be treated as combatants, not civilians with constitutional protections.

    But another conservative senator, Rand Paul, a strong libertarian, has said "detaining citizens without a court trial is not American" and that if the law passes "the terrorists have won".

    "We're talking about American citizens who can be taken from the United States and sent to a camp at Guantánamo Bay and held indefinitely. It puts every single citizen American at risk," he said. "Really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us? The first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly named Patriot Act, is that our pre-9/11 police powers were insufficient to stop terrorism. This is simply not borne out by the facts."

    Paul was backed by Senator Dianne Feinstein.

    "Congress is essentially authorising the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge," she said. "We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge."

    Paul said there were already strong laws against support for terrorist groups. He noted that the definition of a terrorism suspect under existing legislation was so broad that millions of Americans could fall within it.

    "There are laws on the books now that characterise who might be a terrorist: someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect according to the department of justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist," Paul said. "If you are suspected because of these activities, do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantánamo Bay for indefinite detention?"

    Under the legislation suspects can be held without trial "until the end of hostilities". They will have the right to appear once a year before a committee that will decide if the detention will continue.

    The Senate is expected to give final approval to the bill before the end of the week. It will then go to the president, who previously said he would block the legislation not on moral grounds but because it would "cause confusion" in the intelligence community and encroached on his own powers.

    But on Wednesday the White House said Obama had lifted the threat of a veto after changes to the law giving the president greater discretion to prevent individuals from being handed to the military.

    Critics accused the president of caving in again to pressure from some Republicans on a counter-terrorism issue for fear of being painted in next year's election campaign as weak and of failing to defend America.

    Human Rights Watch said that by signing the bill Obama would go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.

    "The paradigm of the war on terror has advanced so far in people's minds that this has to appear more normal than it actually is," Malinowski said. "It wasn't asked for by any of the agencies on the frontlines in the fight against terrorism in the United States. It breaks with over 200 years of tradition in America against using the military in domestic affairs."

    In fact, the heads of several security agencies, including the FBI, CIA, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general objected to the legislation. The Pentagon also said it was against the bill.

    The FBI director, Robert Mueller, said he feared the law could compromise the bureau's ability to investigate terrorism because it would be more complicated to win co-operation from suspects held by the military.

    "The possibility looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain co-operation from the persons in the past that we've been fairly successful in gaining," he told Congress.

    Civil liberties groups say the FBI and federal courts have dealt with more than 400 alleged terrorism cases, including the successful prosecutions of Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber", Umar Farouk, the "underwear bomber", and Faisal Shahzad, the "Times Square bomber".

    Elements of the law are so legally confusing, as well as being constitutionally questionable, that any detentions are almost certain to be challenged all the way to the supreme court.

    Malinowski said "vague language" was deliberately included in the bill in order to get it passed. "The very lack of clarity is itself a problem. If people are confused about what it means, if people disagree about what it means, that in and of itself makes it bad law," he said.

    Lawmakers Submit Letter Opposing NDAA's Indefinite Detention Provisions

    Forty members of Congress have sent a letter urging the House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders to protest provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act that would legalize the indefinite detention of American citizens. The NDAA first passed in the House of Representatives weeks ago but endured strong opposition from a handful of lawmakers in the U.S. Senate last Thursday, where the bill was passed but with the addition of an amendment that forced the measure to be reconciled and revised for a final vote. The revised version of the NDAA was finalized on Tuesday, and a vote on it is set to take place this week.

    The letter states,

    The Senate-passed version of the NDAA, S. 1867, contains Section 1031, which authorizes indefinite military detention of suspected terrorists without protecting U.S. citizens’ right to trial. We are deeply concerned that this provision could undermine the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendment rights of U.S. citizens who might be subjects of detention or prosecution by the military.

    One signer, Rep. Martin Heinrich (D.-N.M., above left), stated, "I strongly oppose mandating military custody and allowing for indefinite detention without due process or trial. These provisions are deeply concerning and would risk putting American citizens in military detention, indefinitely. In short, this authority is at complete odds with the United States Constitution."

    While the letter is comprised of Democrat signatures, it summarizes the concerns advanced by key Republicans such as Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Justin Amash, all of whom have been quite public and outspoken regarding their opposition to the measure.

    On December 5, Rand Paul wrote of the dangerous provisions found in the NDAA in the National Review: “If you allow the government the unlimited power to detain citizens without a jury trial, you are exposing yourself to the whim of those in power. That is a dangerous game.”

    The final version of the bill, however, does not address any of the concerns put forth in the letter or by the Republicans opposed to the NDAA.

    As noted by The New American’s Joe Wolverton, the revised version of the NDAA bill “will now be sent in its conference form” for a vote in the House and the Senate, and it includes billions of dollars appropriated for a continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wolverton adds that it “greases the skids for the deployment of forces into Iran (after ‘sanctions’ fail to persuade Ahmadinejad to see things our way)” and converts all of the United States into a battlefield, treating all Americans as potential suspects. The entire bill does all of this and more, costing American taxpayers $662 billion.

    The final version of the bill, which followed a series of secret meetings, is now set to be voted on by the end of the week.

    Any issues that the Obama administration purported to have with the Senate-passed version of the bill, none of which seemingly had anything to do with the indefinite detention of Americans, appear to have been settled in those secret meetings, including the provision that would have cut out the Federal Bureau of Investigation from the custody and prosecution of terror suspects.

    The Obama administration’s veto threat was not due to the indefinite detention provision. Recent revelations by Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) indicate that the White House actually insisted that any language exempting American citizens from the indefinite detention provision be removed.

    According to Levin, who is Chairman of the Armed Services Committee: "The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved ... and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section."

    Levin continued: "It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee … we removed it at the request of the administration. It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”

    Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch indicate that the final version of the bill does not protect Americans from any of the dangerous provisions.

    “The sponsors of the bill monkeyed around with a few minor details, but all of the core dangers remain — the bill authorizes the president to order the military to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others found far from any battlefield, even in the United States itself,” said the ACLU’s Chris Anders.

    “The latest version of the defense authorization bill does nothing to address the bill’s core problems — legislated indefinite detention without charge and the militarization of law enforcement,” concurred HRW’s Andrea Prasow.

    The provisions found in Section 1031 of the bill provide the President full power to arrest and detain citizens of the United States without due process. Under that provision, the President is also afforded the authority to use the military to apprehend and detain those suspected individuals, dubbed “covered persons.” According to Section 1031, a “covered person” is one who either engages in terrorist acts, or anyone associated with an organization guilty of “belligerent acts.”

    TNA’s Wolverton opines, “’Beligerent act' — aye, there’s the rub … Given the current inhospitable constitutional climate, is it too farfetched to imagine a scenario in the coming year (when the act would become effective) where a blogger consistently criticizing the foreign policy of the President is branded a 'belligerent' and captured by the military and shut away in a secure military facility without access to an attorney or the established rules of civil procedure?”

    Senator Rand Paul voiced similar concerns in National Review:

    The FBI publishes characteristics of people you should report as possible terrorists. The list includes the possession of “Meals Ready to Eat,” weatherproofed ammunition, and high-capacity magazines; missing fingers; brightly colored stains on clothing; paying for products in cash; and changes in hair color. I fear that such suspicions might one day be used to imprison a U.S. citizen indefinitely without trial. Just this year, the vice president referred to the Tea Party as a bunch of terrorists. So, I think we should be cautious in granting the power to detain without trial.

    Still, supporters for the bill assert that it should not make exceptions for anyone, regardless of their citizenship.

    “It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,” remarked Graham. “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”

    According to the Huffington Post, however, “the last time something of this magnitude was even talked about was during World War Two when Japanese-Americans were put into internment camps following the bombing of Pearl Harbor.”

    While the indefinite detention provision managed to remain in the bill, some other significant items found their way out of it, including a 2014 audit requirement for the Pentagon, reports Congressional Quarterly.
    How did he win the Nobel Peace Prize? This makes the Patriot Act seem like childs play..
    "Who says organization, says oligarchy"

  • #2
    Who voted against

    Democrats and Republicans that voted against this bill: TOTAL 6 (+1 independent)

    Harkin, Thomas [D]
    Paul, Rand [R]
    Coburn, Thomas [R]
    Merkley, Jeff [D]
    Wyden, Ron [D]
    Lee, Mike [R]
    Sanders, Bernard [I]

    GovTrack: Senate Vote On Passage: S. 1867: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
    "Who says organization, says oligarchy"

    Comment


    • #3
      ACLU should be drawing up lawsuits against this section as we speak.

      ACLU, Others Slam Obama For Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provisions | Fox News
      Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...

      Comment


      • #4
        wait a minute, is this constitutional?

        "...Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay." ?

        On US soil, arn't they afforded the same rights and due process as American citizens? I remember the Supreme Court ruling on immigrant rights back in the late 1800's or early 1900's?


        "Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
        In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )"

        Edit: However reading further into this, this could also apply to a US Citizen? Should I post the bill of rights, and the constitution? LOL


        Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

        No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.




        Subtitle D—Detainee Matters SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU- THORIZATION 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, com-
        mitted, 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.

        There you have it. As dblack has already pointed out, your reference to section 1022 only removes the REQUIREMENT to detain a US Citizen, it does not remove the AUTHORITY. Also, the language about this not limiting or expanding or affecting existing law should give you a clue as to how existing law is interpreted by government. There is no accidental ambiguity in a bill of this importance.
        [/quote]

        After further reading, SEC. 1021. state "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." - As by existing law American citizens must be afforded due process ruled in Hamdi Vrs Rumsfeld, however where under "existing law" does it exclude US citizens being detained by the Military? As I understood, the Supreme Court has yet to rule, or maybe you can cite an earlier ruling, on a "detainee" being detained by the military on US soil? I guess I would perhaps cite the Japanese interment camps, and the Supreme Court ruling? Perhaps that would apply? However with regards to detainment, hasn't Hamdi vs Rumsfeld granted detainment and US Citizens being classified as enemy combatants yet afforded due process under the constitution?

        As for the ladder section it explicitly says :

        (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.—


        So why include this language in this section but not the other? Precisely, it leaves open the Executive branch to make the determination and interpretation of "existing" laws as opposed to completely "does not extend
        to citizens of the United States.".

        So for indefinite detainment, does not apply, as Supreme Court has ruled many times for due process. However US Citizens could be detained by the Military, as I have no seen anything to prevent that in existing law? Or could someone correct me here?


        Can't wait until the Supreme Court chimes in, and as usual in the past, strikes down Congressional Laws by extreme senators and congressman. I am actually surprised Obama would not veto this legislation.

        But the Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter, of constitutional rights and due process, most recently - Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

        "Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent, joined by Justice John Paul Stevens, went the furthest in restricting the Executive power of detention. Scalia asserted that based on historical precedent, the government had only two options to detain Hamdi: either Congress must suspend the right to habeas corpus, or Hamdi must be tried under normal criminal law. Scalia wrote that the plurality, though well-meaning, had no basis in law for trying to establish new procedures that would be applicable in a challenge to Hamdi's detention—it was only the job of the Court to declare it unconstitutional and order his release or proper arrest, rather than to invent an acceptable process for detention."


        Another section from the ruling :

        In so holding, we necessarily reject the Government's assertion that separation of powers principles mandate a heavily circumscribed role for the courts in such circumstances. Indeed, the position that the courts must forgo any examination of the individual case and focus exclusively on the legality of the broader detention scheme cannot be mandated by any reasonable view of separation of powers, as this approach serves only to condense power into a single branch of government. We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens. Youngstown Sheet & Tube, 343 U. S., at 587. Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 361, 380 (1989) (it was "the central judgment of the Framers of the Constitution that, within our political scheme, the separation of governmental powers into three coordinate Branches is essential to the preservation of liberty"); Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 426 (1934) (The war power "is a power to wage war successfully, and thus it permits the harnessing of the entire energies of the people in a supreme cooperative effort to preserve the nation. But even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties"). Likewise, we have made clear that, unless Congress acts to suspend it, the Great Writ of habeas corpus allows the Judicial Branch to play a necessary role in maintaining this delicate balance of governance, serving as an important judicial check on the Executive's discretion in the realm of detentions. See St. Cyr, 533 U. S., at 301 ("At its historical core, the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections have been strongest"). Thus, while we do not question that our due process assessment must pay keen attention to the particular burdens faced by the Executive in the context of military action, it would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his detention by his government, simply because the Executive opposes making available such a challenge. Absent suspension of the writ by Congress, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant is entitled to this process.
        Full text here - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...03-6696&friend


        From the ACLU :

        PDATE I: Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

        But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”
        Last edited by Dago; 03 Jan 12,, 06:31.
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          whoa I thought more people would chime in!!! perhaps the title of the thread! where are you guys!


          Relating to Military detention:

          Posse Comitatus Act

          § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
          How Current is This?
          Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

          Essentially, this is implementing the Posse Comitatus Act. That is what Congress did with that legislation, appealed the Posse Comitatus Act. Insurrection Act was modified with Section 1076 in 2007 titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies." It provided that:

          The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[9]


          However this was repealed in 2008.


          So before this legislation, the President did not have the authority to employ Military personal unless specified under the Insurrection Act of either insurrection or lawlessness. With this recent legislation, the President now has the authority to detain US Citizens By US Military Personal. Posse Comitatus Act is hereby repealed.
          Last edited by Dago; 05 Jan 12,, 03:25.
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            horrible law and with possible bad future consequences if it stands. In China they call dissent terroism and send um to camp don't they? When we try to nitpick around the constitution to limit the rights of those we deem it ok to bad things have and will happen
            Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
            ~Ronald Reagan

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm frankly amazed. Abduction and unlimited imprisonment without representation simply at the whim of a government employee? The US government is now applying the standards it uses against the rest of the world against it's own people. I'm thinking back to the debate on rendition and the comments of slippery slopes....
              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

              Leibniz

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                I'm frankly amazed. Abduction and unlimited imprisonment without representation simply at the whim of a government employee? The US government is now applying the standards it uses against the rest of the world against it's own people. I'm thinking back to the debate on rendition and the comments of slippery slopes....
                everyone was scared to be seen as soft on terror in an election yr imo. Those comfortable with it shat on our constitution ironically enough in the name of freedom and those who went along for political reason just shat on it. it would be a hella way to win and election....Obama could just proclaim the republican party members terrorists and send um to Cuba....I mean really what more does it take than an accusation as it does in China to get sent to a re-education camp. This is communist China territory where an accusation is a conviction and was one of our major complaints against the crown. I'm dumbfounded by it and God help us keep our liberty if the courts uphold it because we sure won't of done anything to deserve it. I was amazed this even got to the floor let alone through congress overwhelmingly and will get signed into law. Signing statements mean jackshit
                Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
                ~Ronald Reagan

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                  I'm frankly amazed. Abduction and unlimited imprisonment without representation simply at the whim of a government employee? The US government is now applying the standards it uses against the rest of the world against it's own people. I'm thinking back to the debate on rendition and the comments of slippery slopes....
                  Pari,

                  I'm following this debate elsewhere & it looks like this doesn't apply to US citizens, or at the very least it is unclear that it does. Most of the blogs on this are still referring to the unamended legislation, not that which was passed. Quite how this applies to US citizens may yet be decided in court at some future point. This legislation codifies powers that Bush first asserted the US Government has the right to claim & which Obama is apparently supportive of. The fact that this has passed Congress is more than a bit depressing, though it does now make it clear that this is not simply a Presidential power grab, but has the support of legislators. The fact that the US continues to claim the right to kidnap anyone, anywhere, anytime & detain them indefinately without trial is deeply disturbing. These powers have already been abused & no doubt will be again. Not a great day for liberty.
                  sigpic

                  Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                    Pari,

                    I'm following this debate elsewhere & it looks like this doesn't apply to US citizens, or at the very least it is unclear that it does. Most of the blogs on this are still referring to the unamended legislation, not that which was passed. Quite how this applies to US citizens may yet be decided in court at some future point. This legislation codifies powers that Bush first asserted the US Government has the right to claim & which Obama is apparently supportive of. The fact that this has passed Congress is more than a bit depressing, though it does now make it clear that this is not simply a Presidential power grab, but has the support of legislators. The fact that the US continues to claim the right to kidnap anyone, anywhere, anytime & detain them indefinately without trial is deeply disturbing. These powers have already been abused & no doubt will be again. Not a great day for liberty.
                    One of the things about it is how will we know? No representation? I can't think of how word would get out about any individual being held for that imprisonment to be challenged. Is there any part of the legislation that notifies interested/public parties that someone is being held?
                    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                    Leibniz

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Actually, the requirement section specifically excludes US Citizens. However the other section of the NDAA does not have the same wording, and only states US Citizens effect of "existing laws". So even if Congress did make the law of indefinite detention, and applied it to US Citizens, it would be invalid and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has held the right of due process and especially under Hamdi Vs Rumsfeld.

                      So US Citizens will not be held indefinitely, as it's unconstitutional. However, the other section specifies now that US Citizens can be detained by the Military. They can still be afforded habeaus corpus, but can be shipped out to Gitmo. As existing law previously would of been Posse Comitatus Act and Insurrection Act, which prevented Military detention of US citizens, however Posse Comitatus Act allows Military detention if Congress allows by statue. They just allowed it. So this is a repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act.


                      Basically

                      US Citizens Indefinite detention = no.
                      US Citizens on US Soil being detained by the Military and shipped to Gitmo = Yes possible.


                      Edit: wait...

                      (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.


                      So it specifically states "existing law" and affect, with this wording, that would not affect Posse Comitatus Act, correct? So Posse Comitatus Act would still prevent Military detention of American Citizens on US Soil?
                      Last edited by Dago; 06 Jan 12,, 03:15.
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        wait a minute... does Posse Comitatus Act, really apply?

                        It states "Posse Comitatus Act § 1385.

                        Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

                        Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."


                        But what if they aren't executing a law, and are fighting a war? Can the US Government declare war on it's own Citizens? We'll they already did, with Hamdi being classified as an enemy combatant. So that would possibly mean US Citizens arn't classified under posse comitatus with the new codified status of "covered persons".
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Occasionally the "experts" and pundits piss off a genuine expert enough to make him/her write an explanation of the issues.

                          Lawfare › NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the Perplexed

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X