General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYes, the NDAA really does authorize indefinite detention for U.S. citizens
Source: http://www.americablog.com/2011/12/yes-ndaa-really-does-authorize.html
....Obama's fierce defenders have started spreading myths about the NDAA in an obvious attempt to calm (and muddy) the roiling pre-election waters.
....If you find yourself in conversation with one of the aforementioned Obama Fierce Defenders, here's your reply:
Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention
The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” ... It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention.
Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF [Authorization to Use Military Force]
Section (2) is a brand new addition. It allows the President to target not only those who helped perpetrate the 9/11 attacks or those who harbored them, but also: anyone who “substantially supports” such groups and/or “associated forces.” Those are extremely vague terms ... (see what Law Professor Jonathan Hafetz told me in an interview last week about the dangers of those terms).
Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill
There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, ... contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States”[.] ...
But the next section, Section 1022, ... specifically deals with a smaller category of people ... [T]he definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.
...snip...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Autumn
(45,056 posts)Thank you.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)laws. So, no matter what the language is, it has moved the goalpost to ignoring the horrendous attack on civil and human rights removing Habeas Corpus from anyone was.
Now we have moved on to talking about 'but so long as they are not US citizens'.
This, even after all the horror stories, and the confirmations that most of those held in Guantanamo were innocent. AFTER years of detention and torture and no access to family or any legal process. They were kidnapped, for money and many died in custody. These were war crimes. Many have tried to get some justice, but this government has denied them even that.
Why are we ignoring the fact that NOTHING has been done to deal with these war crimes?
And who is responsible for including this language in the bill? Why was it not removed instantly and replaced with language restoring Habeas Corpus? Has anyone stepped forward to identify themselves?
The conversation SHOULD be 'when will Bush's Constitutional and human rights violating laws be rescinded?
Instead we have people attempting to defend the opposite of what should be happening, codifying them, making them stronger.
There is no argument FOR this unless you support Bush/Cheney policies. It's that simple.
Atman
(31,464 posts)...this one included, focus on the bill as if it authorizes the detention of protesters and rabble rousers here in the U.S.
as if Joe Blow off the street could just be detained indefinitely.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)to authorize the detention of protesters and rabblerousers here in the U.S.
That is what the OP explains. The bill defines the category of people who can be detained under the bill too vaguely.
This bill is sloppily written. It is the kind of bill that will come back to haunt anyone who wishes to express an opinion different from that of some future government.
with the broad definition Beligerent acts and associations agaisnt the state
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)why is the "indefinite military detention" needed?
Atman
(31,464 posts)In Myth #1 it says ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.”
Now, since the bill goes on to EXCLUDE U.S. citizens on American soil, those citizens are NOT "covered persons," are they? What did you think "covered persons" meant, those wearing a jacket?
There it is again, in your final "myth." "...the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” How do these two provisions allow for rounding up and detaining U.S. citizens? Are you expecting every one of us to suddenly flee to Paris and take up with the Taliban? Because, yeah, then I suppose they could start rounding us up. The rest of the language is vague, and THAT is the problem, and that is why this will inevitably wind up before the SCOTUS.
In the meantime, don't fly overseas and become a terrorist against the United States and you should be able to rest easy.
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)no matter how many times people repeat otherwise. What is being claimed is not supported by the bill.
U.S. Citizens and Lawful Resident aliens are exempt.
Atman
(31,464 posts)I mean, I've been trying to point this out to my fellow DUers (and even a few concerned FB friends) since this crap first surfaced. The "clear" language as I see it does specifically exclude U.S. citizens, but it seems as if another bunch of these threads pops up every day.
I am concerned -- albeit, only slightly -- about some of the vague language regarding U.S. citizens on foreign soil. But again, that will sooner or later be dealt with in the courts, and it's hardly a recipe for rounding up American protesters.
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)about the vague language regarding U.S. Citizens on foreign soil. That needs to be cleared up either with an amendment to this bill, or like you said in the courts.
What is being presented and suggested by several posters, is that the President and/or Military has the authority to summarily round up U.S. Citizens and detain them indefinitely. I guess I should be worried that if I walk down Main St, that I could be arrested at a moments notice by our Military.
zeljko67
(65 posts)Asked for an explicit exclusion for US citizens on US soil. It was defeated.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)detention of U.S. citizens and lawful residents. It is just too vaguely written.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Both Bush and Obama already assumed these powers. The only thing this bill does is codify them.
zeljko67
(65 posts)1031/1032: US citizens on US soil are included with "covered persons" and as such they can be militarily indefinitely detained, though it is not REQUIRED(exclusion) thus giving an OPTION for due process dependent upon the presdient's opinion.
The president's veto threat was directly tied in with him having an option to decide either for Military detainment or due process. Not only that, the executive asked for the insertion of the language "to include us citizens on US soil for military detainment".
See Carl Levin explain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8_ysdsxF3eo
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)
enough
(13,256 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)In neither Hamdi v. Rumsfeld nor Padilla v. Rumsfeld did the SCOTUS rule that arrest and detention of American citizens by the president was unconstitutional.
It does not EXCLUDE US CITIZENS from Military detainment, it excludes them from the REQUIREMENT of Military detainment.
Do you know what that MEANS???????????????????????
WTF...
Robb
(39,665 posts)You don't believe me?
Good. Read the bill for yourself.
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)The bill deals with military policy, which is pretty well constrained when it comes to US citizens. It doesn't need to deal with the detention of US citizens - and it doesn't deal with the detention of US citizens - because all that's laid out pretty clearly in the Patriot Act, which has been on the books for ten years now.
I know its hard to get used to the idea that we've been living with all the stuff people are trying to scare up outrage over currently, but that's the way it is. What I would like to see is the same energy applied to finding an end to the war, or demanding a plan to end the war from everyone running for office next year.
zeljko67
(65 posts)EFerrari
(163,986 posts)bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)Under Title X: "Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force."
and:
"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."
...and say that this bill wasn't intended to change existing laws or practices, and any interpretation that it did clearly mistakes the intent.
zeljko67
(65 posts)The difference now is that it is not implicit it is EXPLCIT(codified law) thus they can claim,
Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force."
and:
"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.
See:
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.
The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo. That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention."
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)"Detention of American Citizens
as Enemy Combatants"
..or the still current court position on it (current as far as I know). Its notable that every single detention - and there haven't been many - leads to a long and very expensive legal fiasco of one sort or other.
zeljko67
(65 posts)Which has now been codified into law in the new bill.
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)...if you look at what laws are and how they are worded, that isn't it.
And to go right back to the source - as long as the authorization for the war on terror stands, we'll keep running into this kind of problem and/or abuse. What we need is to see a plan to end the war. I'd like to see every candidate running for office have a plan or proposal to end the war, and I would certainly hope to see the president put one on record.
zeljko67
(65 posts)Which is now codified into law. Thus is the reason Feinstein's amendment to exclude us citizens on us soil was defeated..The whole purpose was to make explicit, implicit powers which include indefinite Military detainment of US citizens on US soil
.. No "plan" is needed to end the war on terror..we just need to get the f out and stop giving them reasons to not like us. But trust me, candidates that receives billions of dollars for election purposes from the Military IC and globalist corporation's are beholden only to them and their words to the American people mean absolutely nothing.
When I see a candidate receiving money from regular folks and the media and the establishment is against him/her thats who I'm voting for and you should to.
zeljko67
(65 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)This bill affirms the law that this bill should be repealing.
Obama, himself, should explain what language he requested Sen. Levin to insert in the bill and why. Obama should explain why he did not insist on a clearer definition of who could be apprehended and disappeared under this bill.
This bill is unacceptable to any person who values human rights. The Patriot Act was also terribly flawed because of its vague definition of a terrorist and of terrorism.
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)...as long as the war goes on, we will keep having to deal with the same problems over and over. I'd like to see a plan from the president to end the war, and I'd like to see a similar intention from every person running for office next year.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Its just as debunked now as it was the other 999 times
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)with Greenwald and so does, apparently, Feinstein who has offered up a stand alone bill to make it clear that U.S. Citizens on U.S. soil are exempt from the provisions in Section 1022.
"There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, ... contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” ...
But the next section, Section 1022, ... specifically deals with a smaller category of people ... he definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness. "
Everyone quotes the language of the 1st section without examining the 2nd.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Name dropping the ACLU doesn't help your lost argument.
The second sections doesn't need to exclude anyone because any exclusions are handled by existing laws and this law does not seek to overturn any existing laws, at all, period.
We can go back and forth about muddled legal arguments presented by the 2001 AUMF and the Padilla case, blah, blah, fuckety, blah. Great. Thats fine. This NDAA still changes nothing in regard to existing rights and authorities for detaining US citizens. At the end of the day, it NDAA changes absolutely nothing in regard to current legal situations and detention. None.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)that indefinite detention is a-okay.
So, yes. The NDAA changes nothing except for codifying existing law. And Padilla is existing law.
Galle
(15 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)zeljko67
(65 posts)T S Justly
(884 posts)aletier_v
(1,773 posts)zeljko67
(65 posts)"On December 15, 2011, the Senate passed a bill including provisions on detention that I found simply unacceptable. These provisions are inconsistent with the liberties and freedoms that are at the core of the system our Founders established. And while I did in fact vote for an earlier version of the legislation, I did so with the hope that the final version would be significantly improved. That didn't happen, and so I could not support the final bill.
The bill that passed included several problematic provisions, the worst of which could allow the military to detain Americans indefinitely, without charge or trial, even if they're on U.S. soil. Another provision requires the military-not civilian law enforcement agencies like the FBI-to detain anyone that it believes to be a member of al Qaeda or an associated force and who helped plan or carry out an attack on the U.S. or its allies. At their core, these provisions will radically alter how we investigate, arrest, and detain individuals suspected of terrorism. This leaves it unclear what role the FBI and other law enforcement agencies are to play, despite their proven effectiveness at preventing attacks on our homeland since September 11th. This comes despite deep concerns voiced by FBI Director Robert Mueller before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I'm a member. What's more, these provisions could undermine the safety of our troops stationed abroad.
During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act, I expressed my strong opposition to these provisions on the floor of the Senate. I filed two amendments to strip each of the provisions, but unfortunately neither received a vote. I also voted in favor of several amendments that would have made significant improvements to the provisions; none of these passed..."
Pretty straight forward...
zeljko67
(65 posts)Other than idiots that can't believe their congress people and president would do something against the bill of rights and their supporters interests.
Other than those people most people are clear on what the bill does as is Al franken:
On December 15, 2011, the Senate passed a bill including provisions on detention that I found simply unacceptable. These provisions are inconsistent with the liberties and freedoms that are at the core of the system our Founders established. And while I did in fact vote for an earlier version of the legislation, I did so with the hope that the final version would be significantly improved. That didn't happen, and so I could not support the final bill.
The bill that passed included several problematic provisions, the worst of which could allow the military to detain Americans indefinitely, without charge or trial, even if they're on U.S. soil. Another provision requires the military-not civilian law enforcement agencies like the FBI-to detain anyone that it believes to be a member of al Qaeda or an associated force and who helped plan or carry out an attack on the U.S. or its allies. At their core, these provisions will radically alter how we investigate, arrest, and detain individuals suspected of terrorism. This leaves it unclear what role the FBI and other law enforcement agencies are to play, despite their proven effectiveness at preventing attacks on our homeland since September 11th. This comes despite deep concerns voiced by FBI Director Robert Mueller before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I'm a member. What's more, these provisions could undermine the safety of our troops stationed abroad.
During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act, I expressed my strong opposition to these provisions on the floor of the Senate. I filed two amendments to strip each of the provisions, but unfortunately neither received a vote. I also voted in favor of several amendments that would have made significant improvements to the provisions; none of these passed..."
Pretty straight forward...
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)But somehow now it's okay. Hey, citizens aren't REQUIRED to be detained by the military!
