Changes to the National Defense Authorization Act: Are They Enough?

[WilliamPitt]

Changes to the National Defense Authorization Act: Are They Enough?
http://www.politicususa.com/en/ndaa-civil-liberties

I'd quote text, but the article has a zillion blockquotes, and I don't have time to deal with the formatting. Read it and judge for yourself.

[teddy51]

1. Apart from the fact that the law should never have been written, drafted, or voted

on in the first place. Still can't believe that the Senate voted 93-7 to pass this POS legislation.

[WilliamPitt]

2. "Strong on Defense"

still rings the bells in an election year.

[Solly Mack]

10. +1

[L0oniX]

3. I don't and never will agree to giving up my freedom for security. I'm not going along with all..

the irrational knee jerk reaction wars and what this fucked up gov is doing to protect us. We're moving toward fascism with corporations and corporate tools as its leaders.

O yea ...and it's not "defense" and hasn't been for a long time.

[Autumn]

4. Not after reading this

"The legislation would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation’s borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. The lawmakers made no changes to that language."

[WillyT]

8. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

EXACTLY !!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Obviously enough to provide Obama with "tough on terra" creds and cover his flip flop.

[bigtree]

6. of course not, but there are other questions

1. What difference would a veto have made in the overall fate of the provision? I can see an override in the number voting for this and the past attitude of Congress in Defense spending bills to move even further away from dismantling Bush's detention regime.

2. What actually changed? The President asserts that they already had the authority to detain and hold terror suspects indefinitely. If you look at the explanation of Adam Smith (D-WA), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, defending and clarifying the detention provisions in the NDAA and advocating for its passage: (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/adam-smiths-dear-colleague-letter-on-the-ndaas-detention-provisions/)

First, the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) section in our bill, Section 1021, merely codifies current law. It specifically states, “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.” Quite simply, our courts will decide what the law is regarding detention of U.S. citizens.

Second, any U.S. citizen detained under Section 1021 has the right under habeas corpus to have the legality of any such detention determined by our courts. The courts have also held that anyone detained under the AUMF at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, also has habeas rights. We do not change these rights.

Third, Section 1022, entitled, “Military Custody For Foreign al-Qaeda Terrorists” specifically excludes US citizens. It states, “the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” It also states the requirement to detain under Section 1022 “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.”

Fourth, we also codify periodic review for those being detained at Guantanamo Bay, now and in the future, which is an important procedure for those detained indefinitely as a threat to the United States under the law of war.

Finally, I understand and respect the opinions of our colleagues who do not like the current law on this subject. I fought hard in conference to make sure that this bill did nothing to expand federal authority under the AUMF and succeeded in that effort. We need to protect our country but also preserve our values and due process rights in doing so." (end statement)

3. Will this action help or hinder the President's ability to follow through on his promise to close Gitmo and move the 174 prisoners left there to civilian control, other accepting nations, or some other facility until their 'review' is completed?

Despite, the fact that he made an executive decision to institute military tribunals for prisoners earlier this year, the administration has, at least, been consistent in working to move most of the detainees to trial, both civilian courts and military tribunals for others. The presidential 'waiver' that the WH negotiated could actually hold up in court, where his efforts, so far, have failed to make that process work effectively or without protest and obstruction from Congress.

[bigtree]

7. kick

[Solly Mack]

9. K&R

[WilliamPitt]

11. WHERE IS THE LOUNGING BANANA???

I'm freaking out.

[Solly Mack]

12. No signature pictures means no banana. I'm crushed... but dealing with it. :(

Maybe later...