Indefinite Detention of American Citizens: Coming Soon to Battlefield U.S.A.

[TomClash]

There’s some disturbing rhetoric flying around in the debate over the National Defense Authorization Act, which among other things contains passages that a) officially codify the already-accepted practice of indefinite detention of "terrorist" suspects, and b) transfer the responsibility for such detentions exclusively to the military.

The fact that there’s been only some muted public uproar about this provision (which, disturbingly enough, is the creature of Wall Street anti-corruption good guy Carl Levin, along with John McCain) is mildly surprising, given what’s been going on with the Occupy movement. Protesters in fact should be keenly interested in the potential applications of this provision, which essentially gives the executive branch unlimited powers to indefinitely detain terror suspects without trial.

The really galling thing is that this act specifically envisions American citizens falling under the authority of the bill. One of its supporters, the dependably-unlikeable Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, bragged that the law "basically says … for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield" and that people can be jailed without trial, be they "American citizen or not." New Hampshire Republican Kelly Ayotte reiterated that "America is part of the battlefield."

. . .

Here’s another way to ask the question: On which side of the societal fence do you think the McCains and Grahams would put, say, an unemployed American plumber who refused an eviction order from Bank of America and holed up with his family in his Florida house, refusing to move? Would Graham/McCain consider that person to have the same rights as Lloyd Blankfein, or is that plumber closer, in their eyes, to being like the young Muslim who throws a rock at a U.S. embassy in Yemen?

A few years ago, that would have sounded like a hysterical question. But it just doesn’t seem that crazy anymore. We’re turning into a kind of sci-fi society in which making it and being a success not only means getting rich, but also means winning the full rights of citizenship. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t see this ending well.


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/indefinite-detention-of-american-citizens-coming-soon-to-battlefield-u-s-a-20111209#ixzz1g66XmhIq

[tabatha]

1. Obama will veto.

[limpyhobbler]

4. yes he says he will veto, but didn't it pass the Senate with over 90 votes?

So they could override the veto, no?

[cherokeeprogressive]

7. I thought that took a two-thirds majority in each house. n/t

[tammywammy]

12. I does take 2/3 of both the House & Senate. n/t

[limpyhobbler]

13. oh yeah that's right, n/t

[Sydnie]

5. If Obama vetos, can they muster the votes to override the veto?

I seriously don't know (been out of the loop on this one) but my son is really concerned with this language/intent so I need an education about it.

[babylonsister]

18. Hey...

:hug:

[eomer]

23. Just to clarify, it hasn't actually been passed by Congress yet.

The House and Senate passed different versions of it, which means it is now going into conference committee where they will try to work out the differences. Then both the House and Senate would have to pass the new version.

We don't yet know whether a new bill would have these provisions, which I believe are in only the Senate version. We also don't know whether the President would veto an eventual bill that has some form of the provisions; his veto threat is against any provision that limits his authorities, not against any provision that tramples on rights like habeas corpus.

So right now this is still up to Congress and it would be good to call and put pressure on them to fix our concerns (which are apparently different than the President's concerns) before it ever gets to the question of a veto or an override.

[grasswire]

2. another post on DU today mentions a new Army...

...special training on the detention of civilians. Something a recruit can choose, such as cook training, vehicle maintenance, detention of civilians.

[limpyhobbler]

3. Maybe the Supreme Court will rescue us.

Maybe this law will be challenged in the courts. It must violate the Constitution somehow?

Other than that, we are all doomed:hide:

[teddy51]

6. This is so fucked up! So what makes Lindsey Graham believe that he may not

fall victim to this law? I think that both Naomi Klein, and Naomi Wolff have talked about this at length in there books and there talks. This country is fucked! Bush jr./Cheney started this, and Obama will finish it off.

[tabatha]

8. Obama will veto it.

Don't fucking say that Obama will finish it off.

[teddy51]

9. He might veto it, but that veto may very well fail! And I am not certain that he doesn't

want this power anyway. He hasn't actually been a stellar leader for the Progressive Democrats in the past 3 years.

I think that even Senator Bernie Sanders has some problems with President Obama's do-good results. Lets fight, damnit.

Quit Copitulating to the RIGHT!

[tabatha]

10. You really are stretching it.

"Quit Copitulating to the RIGHT!"

How the hell does my insistence that Obama will veto it amount to "capitulating" to the right?

The right never entered the conversation. I was repeating what Obama said about this particular issue.

But you obfuscate by bringing in Sanders, the right, and the kitchen sink.

[teddy51]

15. He may veto it and it may not hold up. If the bill was voted on, and passed with a

by whatever the margin, his veto may mean nothing. I am not certain in my mind that he will be really upset by that.

[Xicano]

14. Obama also said he'd fix FISA the moment he got into the White House

What happened with that?

I'm just saying

[JDPriestly]

20. Wait and see. Obama has done so many things that I never thought

he would do -- mostly things I hoped he would never do.

He quite possibly might veto the bill knowing full well that he has enough votes in Congress to override his veto.

As I recall, he hinted that he wanted to right to hold terrorists in prison indefinitely without trial.

Guantanamo cannot be maintained as a prison camp forever.

This bill is not aimed at the Second-Amendment lovers. It is aimed at the OWSers. The irony, of course, is that the OWSers are non-violent while the Second Amendment lovers -- love their Second Amendment rights.

[Diclotican]

11. TomClash

TomClash

It all started with the Patriot Act... The downward spiral, where the freedom, liberty and everything else the US have been standing for for more than 200 year, is slowly been turning to ashes.. This National Defense Authorization Act is just another nail in the coffin of the old republic.. who once was the greatest country that most nations in one way or another wanted to emulate as best as they could.. The result is that even in the most remote parts of the world,you can discover a coca cola box or two.. Or other trinkets from the great USA...

And, now you also have the National Defense Authorization Act, who can, and possible will be used to arrest and detain many, without proper cort appeals, and the use of proper legal presence... NDAC is indeed a sad act, who can end in horror, for so many civilians, if not challenged in cort..

How low hasn't the united states of america really fallen the last decade or two..

Diclotican

[TomClash]

21. It is the next stage of the Empire

The further erosion and corrosion of the Republic.

[slipslidingaway]

16. knr nt

[babylonsister]

17. Dammit! I thought this would happen during dimson. Now it's

during a Dem/Obama run?
Let me know when it happens, and in the meantime, WTF should I be afraid of, again? Dammit, sick of this crap. Unrec for no substance.

[StarsInHerHair]

19. I hope this nightmare doesn't come true

[Raksha]

22. Obama won't veto the detention of American citizens because he requested it.

Don't believe me? Check this out...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/09/1043781/-Why-Obama-Will-Not-Veto-NDAA-Military-Detention-of-Americans:-He-Requested-It

[ProSense]

25. That

"Obama won't veto the detention of American citizens because he requested it."

...diary is a perfect example of how BS becomes fact. The clip of Levin does not support the claim.

Even if one were to believe the claim, ask why Levin would refuse to remove the language based upon the President's statement of policy and very public request/veto threat?

This is simply another idiotic (really idiotic) attempt to make the issue about Obama when it was Levin and McCain who drafted the bill and the Senate who failed to pass the amendments to fix it.

[ProSense]

24. When the NDAA passes and is vetoed by President Obama, what will the Senate do?

When the NDAA passes and is vetoed by President Obama, what will the Senate do?

Will everyone cheer?

[bvar22]

26. Restoring America's Honor

Jon Stewart explains why this is the next logical step in the following clip.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------