Will someone please explain this to me about the NDAA?

[phleshdef]

"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."

I'm still unsure why this language doesn't cover everyone's ass. Can someone explain why it doesn't?

Existing laws do not allow indefinite detention. Existing laws protect our rights in regard to this kind of stuff.

Am I missing some big loophole or are people just hellbent on being angry over the bill, regardless of how they changed it?

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Reccing in hopes of an answer.

[teddy51]

2. If the Feinstein ammendment was passed, and is in the bill then I think you are

correct. Here is the ammendment:

Senator Dianne Feinstein has offered Amendment No. 1125 to the NDAA. Although the detention provisions in the NDAA are rife with problems, the Feinstein amendment targets a single, but important, problem. The amendment would add the word "abroad" to section 1032 of the bill. The result would be that the mandatory military detention requirement in section 1032 would apply only when a covered terrorism suspect is captured abroad. While persons taken into custody in the United States could still be put into military custody under section 1031 of the bill (which pares back on the protections provided by the Posse Comitatus Act), the military would not be REQUIRED to put such person into military custody, if the Feinstein amendment passes.

I urge you to vote YES on Feinstein Amendment No. 1125 as a way to improve the detention provisions of the NDAA. While many significant problems would remain in the detention provisions of the bill, it is important for the Senate to fix the problem targeted by the Feinstein Amendment.

[phleshdef]

3. The Feinstein amendment is in the bill the last I read.

So I'm perplexed as to why it doesn't fix most of the problems. It seems to me that a lot of people are ignoring the fact that it was put into the bill.

[a simple pattern]

5. It doesn't fix most of the problems because

persons taken into custody in the United States could still be put into military custody under section 1031 of the bill

They don't need a reason beyond "there are too many to fit in the jail"

[phleshdef]

6. "or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States"

According to that language, if you are taken into custody in the United States, current laws and rights apply to you the same as always.

[Capitalocracy]

9. Oh, good, then instead of expanding the unconstitutional actions of the government...

it just codifies the ones we already do at Gitmo. What a relief.

[karynnj]

11. Both 1125 and 1126 failed, a weaker Feinstein amendment that the OP states then passed 99 - 1

after her two earlier amendments (1125 and 1126) failed.

This is from the Senate record:

AMENDMENT NO. 1456

I call up my amendment No. 1456, which is the modification.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California proposes an amendment numbered 1456.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

There are others who wish to speak.

The amendment is as follows:

On p 360, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:

(e) 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.

I DON'T think this means that there are no changes caused by this bill. The Udall amendment tried to insure that - and it failed. Then Feinstein tried in two amendments to remove some of the worst things - and they failed. This was a last effort that affects only people captured in the US. (Credit to her for getting even just this spelled out - she and others tried to stop this.)

Here are the nays for 1125:

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Begich (D-AK)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00213

Here are the nays for 1126 -

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Begich (D-AK)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)

Blumenthal, Reed, Whitehouse and Inouye surprise me - and the fact that Levin put it in in the first place does as well.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00214

One question I have is whether the Feinstein amendment that did pass is in the reconciliation bill. (Given the votes, there is no chance that anyone will work to amend the reconciliation bill on this issue - except to make a point. It doesn't have the votes and if the bill is amended, it needs to go back to the House.)

[teddy51]

12. Thanks for the update! So it would seem that NDAA is nearly as bad as many

feared from the beginning.

[Robb]

4. The bill, relevantly, upholds the punt to the USSC that existed before it.

AUMF has given us a war on terror with a subjective goalpost for ending its authorities.

Both sides of the aisle have a lot of constituents who are concerned about detaining US citizens -- both sides have different reasons, of course. But it's a set up for the courts: by the time the notion gets a high court challenge, the threat of al Qaeda will be difficult to understate (it already is).

I read something in Mother Jones along the lines of "I wouldn't want to be the lawyer arguing in front of the Supreme Court that al Qaeda represents a big enough threat that we need to extend the AUMF specifically to indefinitely hold a US citizen."

[teddy51]

7. I'm still not happy that Obama didn't video the damn thing though. There is,

IMO no good reason to have this law in the first place.

[phleshdef]

8. Yea, I'm not all for the bill or anything. I just want to make sure if I get mad over a bill...

...its for the right reasons and not ones that actually don't exist.

[Angry Dragon]

10. If nothing has changed in detention, that is good

However it also upholds the right to kill American citizens anywhere in the world if they are judged a terrorist by a secret committee

The problem with the bill is that the people voting on it have as much clue of what they voted on as the common person
If the bill is that confusing all those lawyers in congress should have been able to put words in there so everyone could understand their rights.........