What part of non-citizen don't you understand?

[county worker]

The new bill still mandates military detention without trial for any non-citizen terrorism suspect apprehended in the US.

[MjolnirTime]

1. Outrage is preferable to comprehension in the minds of some.

[Robb]

15. That's a little rough. I think the Feinstein amendment is inherently confusing

...in that, in most legal documents, authorities are explained/vested in the beginning of the thing.

The authority outlined in 1031(e) essentially defangs any part of the section that isn't allowed by current law -- e.g., no change in powers (more or fewer) for anyone as a result of the bill being passed.

[Aerows]

32. It's poorly written legislation is what it is

And wide open to interpretation. You can ask ten different legal scholars what they believe, and ten of them will come up with different answers. Not good enough when it comes to securing the rights of American citizens.

EDIT: And mind you, I place the blame squarely on Congress for this nightmare, but the President should have vetoed it and sent it back for revision on the grounds that it is half a step above intelligible.

We have got to get some decent people in Congress again instead of this lot of people who have the emotional development of 3 year olds. My God, our country is better than this, and it is worthy of better people to serve it than most of these idiots.

[Robb]

34. Checks and balances.

USSC has ruled on the issue; Congress can't pass a law that blatantly undermines that without a legal challenge.

The President used a veto threat to get changes that, while they don't correct the "big" issue, make sure Congress doesn't pass a law that would almost certainly begin a faceoff with the Supremes.

He knows he can run the clock on the court if he gets four more years to pick another seat or two (and he probably will), and in the meantime run AUMF to the ground by actually destroying al Qaeda. Once a decent legal argument can be made that al Q are no longer a meaningful threat, look for challenges to AUMF to begin in earnest -- especially if there's a US citizen detainee case.

A seriously creepy chess player would make certain there was one in the pipeline, so to speak, set to go off in court at just the right time to end this national nightmare.

[Aerows]

35. Congress is the pack of idiots that came up with this horribly worded nightmare

Like they did with AUMF. It's up to the Executive branch to be the check on their power.

Somebody has to check these three year olds because they think pizza is a vegetable!

[Robb]

37. The executive branch, and the court.

Which is the point, I think.

[Aerows]

38. The executive branch is the front line

to keep horrible legislation from passing. Let's not pretend that it doesn't start there. The Judicial branch kicks in if the veto gets over-ridden and it then lands in court.

[SomethingFishy]

29. Yeah human rights are nothing to get outraged over

as long as the violations are only done to dem dere foreigners.

I read the bill. All but the financial parts which I have started going through. I comprehended everything.

The bill contains human rights violations, treaty violations and if it were used against Americans Constitutional violations.

But hey no need to get hysterical! Just sit back and let the big boys handle everything. No need to read the bill, no need to know what's in it, just know that it was amended and no longer allows for the capture of Americans on American soil.

Shut up, sit back, and let us "protect" you.


Outrage comes out of comprehension.

[MjolnirTime]

47. at least you comprehend that it only applies to foreigners. Some can't even understand that.

[SomethingFishy]

48. Except it doesn't.. the amendment failed...

I bought that bullshit as well. I thought it was amended but it's not. The bill gives discretionary power to the President to detain anyone he labels a terrorist. Americans included.. While I may and I say may, trust Obama with this power, if it gets into the hands of someone like Gingrinch.... I don't even want to think about that shit.

[Odin2005]

2. Non-citizens are human beings and deserve to have their human rights respected.

[LadyHawkAZ]

3. ^this n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. Human rights defined by whom?

[ThomWV]

10. The answer is obvious: as defined by the "Commander in Chief", the military's Highest Power.

[Capitalocracy]

11. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin...

That's a good start, I'd say.

[Odin2005]

16. The UN Declaration of Human Rights.

And the Geneva Conventions.

[Cali_Democrat]

28. Yes indeed.

[SomethingFishy]

30. Oh gee, the Constitution, The UN,

The Geneva Conventions and various other treaties.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. +1

Our constitution makes it quite clear when anything it refers to is restricted to 'citizens' rather than, for example, 'the people'.

Rights are generally universal, inalienable, etc.

[RC]

19. Rights exist because we do, not because government grants them to us.

[SammyWinstonJack]

21. Yes!

[The Doctor.]

4. Two concerns:

1) What protocol is in effect to determine citizenship?

2) What rights does a non-citizen detainee have?

[Capitalocracy]

7. Not to mention the fact that it MANDATES detention of non-citizens, but ALLOWS detention of citizens

And of course, since when does the constitution not apply to non-citizens? Don't visit the U.S.!

[Luminous Animal]

5. The bill gives the President the discretion to do the same to U.S. citizens

apprehended in the U.S.

[phleshdef]

9. I don't see how thats possible with this language.

"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"

Theres nothing vague about that.

[Luminous Animal]

13. From the ACLU...

"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."

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/explaining-to-a-5-year-old-why-the-indefinite-detention-bill-does-apply-to-u-s-citizens-on-u-s-soil.html

And this:
"They will say that American citizens are specifically exempted under the following language in Sec. 1032: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” Don’t be fooled. All this says is that the President is not REQUIRED to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial. It still PERMITS him to do so."

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/the-indefinite-detention-bill-does-apply-to-american-citizens-on-u-s-soil.html

[Robb]

14. But that language is in 1031.

Neither blog you linked to addresses it.

[Luminous Animal]

27. Yes, but 1302 addresses presidential powers under AUMF

and the 4th circuit decided, in the Padilla case, that under AUMF, the president CAN detain U.S. citizens detained on U.S. soil, indefinitely.

[Robb]

33. The Fourth Circuit's Padilla ruling did not overturn the Supreme Court.

USSC didn't hear Padilla on a technicality, but ruled the year before in Hamdi that while they can be held as enemy combatants, US citizens must be allowed to challenge that designation in court -- Fifth Amendment, due process.

Justice O'Connor delivered the majority opinion: "We hold that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged here, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker."

[Luminous Animal]

40. Padilla was kicked back to the Circuit on a technicality. His case has never been decided by the

Supreme Court.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-vladeck17aug17,0,4813258.story

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28prisoner%29#Timeline

[Robb]

41. You understand Hamdi was a US citizen, right?

That's the law as it stands.

[Luminous Animal]

42. Captured in Afghanistan in battle and the SC decision rested on his circumstances

alone. The SC bounced Padilla down to the 4th. Currently, it is the 4th's decision which stands in regards to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

[Robb]

45. No, where Hamdi was captured wasn't relevant.

Read the opinion; the issue at hand was never whether he was an enemy combatant, but how he would be treated having been designated as one and being a US citizen. It was not about battlefield vs. non-battlefield, but rather what process is afforded for prisoners taken who continue to be held.

The court spoke very plainly on that: they get to challenge their enemy combatant designation.

On edit: It would be helpful of me, when I say things like "read the opinion," to provide a link: http://www.icrc.org/ihl-nat.nsf/46707c419d6bdfa24125673e00508145/cf04f594d0fb92cac1257244004de1ee

[phleshdef]

22. The ACLU is apparently ignoring the fact that existing law already covers that.

This proposed bill says the President isn't required to do it. Existing laws, laws that this bill does NOT repeal, are still what they are in terms of our rights. I don't believe existing law gives such an option. There is some question about some stuff in AUMF. But those questions exist with or without this bill.

Unless you can prove to me that this bill somehow overturns existing laws, then I don't see where you or ACLU really have an argument there.

Its not that I support the bill, something that causes this much confusion shouldn't become law until all confusion is cleared with better language. But from a purely objective reading of whats in this law tied out with existing law, I can see no proof that this bill does anything remotely close to what some are claiming.

[Luminous Animal]

25. Currently, existing law does include indefinite detention.

The 4th Circuit made sure of that in it's Padilla decision and the Bush admin made sure that the 4th's decision never made it to the Supreme Court.

[phleshdef]

31. I consider it a matter put into question by things like the AUMF.

But ultimately, my interpretation of the law is that indefinite detention is not a legal option. I think this will eventually become a question for the Supreme Court, sooner or later, and I believe the Supreme Court, if its being truthful, would agree with my interpretation.

But thats a problem regardless of NDAA. NDAA does not appear to take away any of my rights.

[bhikkhu]

54. "Indefinite detention" is a part of "the law of war", always qualified by

"until the cessation of hostilities". Indefinite means "for no definite time period".

In war, if you take prisoners, they traditionally become prisoners until the end of the war. FDR held 400,000+ Germans, Japanese, and Italians in indefinite detention by 1945, for instance. Ending the war should be the biggest priority.

[Luminous Animal]

8. "Yes, let me explain it in words that even a 5-year-old can understand …

The bill says that the military must indefinitely detain anyone SUSPECTED of helping bad guys.

One provision says that the mandatory (“must”) indefinite detention doesn’t apply to U.S. citizens … but the government CAN indefinitely detain any U.S. citizen it feels like without trial, without presenting evidence, without letting the citizen consult with a lawyer, and without even charging the citizen.

This would destroy our Constitutional rights to trial, to face our accuser and to consult with an attorney.

Indeed, it would destroy rights created in England in 1215.

In other words, it’s like saying “you don’t HAVE to lock up Joey for the rest of his life because he called you a mean name, but you CAN lock him away and throw away the key and then falsely accuse him of being a suspected terrorist if it would make you happy”."

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/explaining-to-a-5-year-old-why-the-indefinite-detention-bill-does-apply-to-u-s-citizens-on-u-s-soil.html

[DocMac]

12. Unless the President decides

that detaining a citizen warrants such action. All he/she needs is to be convinced.

Is that not in the language in this Bill? Isn't that the language the president wanted in the Bill?

[Quantess]

18. So? People from other nations have rights too.

It makes the USA look like a bully.

[abelenkpe]

20. we are bullies. nt

[polly7]

23. I don't understand this bill.

Does it give the U.S. gov't the right to pick up someone from any country in the world, detain them without trial and, basically, just disappear them forever?

[bhikkhu]

50. It gives the authority to detain people involved with the Taliban and Al-qaeda only

...given that we are "at war", as declared by congress, with both. And the detention is authorized only until the cessation of hostilities, according to "the law of war", which includes the Geneva Convention protections and a host of procedures and requirements. Its no different from any other war.

You might look at WWII, for instance, where by 1945 FDR held 400,000+ Germans, Italians and Japanese in "indefinite detention", until the cessation of hostilities.

As far as keeping your eye on the ball here - the important thing is that the war must have an end. I'd like to see a plan for an end, and I'd certainly like to see it as an election year issue...

[coalition_unwilling]

51. Not an expert on Geneva by any means, but I'm pretty certain that

Geneva requires that anyone detained on the field of battle be given a judicial hearing to determine whether he or she is in fact a combatant. In other words, under Geneva if I understand it correctly, the Executive branch through its military cannot lawfullly be the final arbiter of whether someone detained is a combatant. Only the Judicial branch can be.

That reading of Geneva puts the status of everyone detained at Gitmo outside the bounds of international law and explains one reason why most civil libertarians and adherents of international law view Gitmo as an absolute abomination.

Now, if I'm wrong about what Geneva requires as to determination of combatant status, I will gladly retract this post.

[bhikkhu]

52. There is a whole set of procedures and controls - some listed in section 1036:

PROCEDURES FOR STATUS DETERMINATIONS.
(a) In General- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the procedures for determining the status of persons detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) for purposes of section 1031.

(b) Elements of Procedures- The procedures required by this section shall provide for the following in the case of any unprivileged enemy belligerent who will be held in long-term detention under the law of war pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force:

(1) A military judge shall preside at proceedings for the determination of status of an unprivileged enemy belligerent.

(2) An unprivileged enemy belligerent may, at the election of the belligerent, be represented by military counsel at proceedings for the determination of status of the belligerent.

(c) Report on Modification of Procedures- The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on any modification of the procedures submitted under this section. The report on any such modification shall be so submitted not later than 60 days before the date on which such modification goes into effect.

(d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined- In this section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--

(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and

(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives."

[coalition_unwilling]

57. 1036 (a) looks to me to be a key element, as it requires

a procedure for determining the "status of persons detained'.

By the way, I wanted to say 'thank you' to you for taking the time to actually read and consider the language of the bill. A part of me wants to say that 'Fools rush in where angels fear to tread' , but your persistence in reading and parsing the bill's language makes it easier for those of us who do not have the wherewithal or stamina to read the actual bill.

Do you have any idea why the ACLU and Human Rights Watch continue to raise concerns about the bill?

[bhikkhu]

58. I think the main problem is the difficulty of seeing an endpoint

In war, "indefinite detention" is the norm - but always with the caveat "until the cessation of hostilities". FDR held 400,000+ that way in 1945, but there was never a question that the war would end, or at least somehow an armistice and exchange of prisoners would be arrived at (such as how the Korean war was resolved, but not ended, in 1953).

Without a plan to end the war, the human rights problems involving prisoners just get worse and worse every year...

[Erose999]

24. Visitors to the US, that part. Its kind of a dickmove to shitcan their human rights.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Habeus corpus and the right to a speedy trial are soooo....1787.

[Matariki]

36. What part of NO ONE should face indefinite detention without a trial don't YOU understand?

Or the ability to face their accusers, or even know the accusations?

This is what we are now? Habeas Corpus be damned?

[Aerows]

39. We need better people in Congress

These people control the purse strings, they are 95% of the problem with their bickering, ability to evade the law themselves, and being bought out by lobbyists.

Until we get decent people in Congress, we are going to have failure legislation like this, though it would help if we had an executive branch with the balls to veto their inept legislation.

[MedleyMisty]

43. What part of "human" don't you understand?

My empathy for people and concern for their rights is not predicated on which bit of land they happen to have been born on/live on.

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. Non-citizens are still human beings.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

46. Yup.

I hated it when that fucker Bush did it and, guess what? I still fucking hate it.

If Obama signs this piece of shit, he is just like Bush and deserves to be put out of office.

[bhikkhu]

49. No authority is given, unless the person is supporting the Taliban or Al-qaeda

as the bill clearly states in section 1031: " (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners."

Then there is the question as to whether US citizens or people here legally can be detained by the military if they are believed to be "covered persons" involved with Al-qaeda or the Taliban. The bill 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."

The "requirement" part comes in because the bill says "shall" - meaning it is required - to hold a covered person under "the law of war", which includes following the Geneva Convention and a whole set of procedures and protections.

...in any case, the biggest bit of misinformation about this bill is that it authorizes the military detention of citizens, which it doesn't, and then that it applies generally beyond the Taliban and Al-qaeda, which it doesn't, and then even that it provides for indefinite detention - which it doesn't. The "law of war", in keeping with the Geneva Convention and age-old custom, is detention until "the cessation of hostilities". This bill allows nothing that hasn't been the norm in every other war...

What I would like is to see a plan to end the war, as more productive than the whole sideshow/fearfest over this bill.

[Spider Jerusalem]

53. Stupid argument

the Bill of Rights is construed as applying to "all persons", not merely to US citizens. There is quite a substantial body of law relating to this which affirms the right of non-citizen aliens in the US to Constitutional protections including right to trial. See Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), where the Supreme Court held "The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: '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.' These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality". See also Wong Wing vs US, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), where the majority held "it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

There's a lot more besides. "Non-citizen" doesn't matter here. This is the argument of someone who's either ignorant or stupid (or relying on the ignorance and stupidity of others).

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. And what part of this violates both NATIONAL

(the US Constitution) and International law, are you having problems understanding.

This is another step towards totalitarianism... but don't let history teach you this.

[backscatter712]

56. Oh, I see! If it only happens to dem furrin brown people, it's A-OK!!!

[Pachamama]

59. I understand that my non-citizen relatives will no longer have rights if they visited and were

...accused of being associated with terrorists. They have more rights in Germany than th US will....how ironic since many of my family had at one time seen in Nazi Germany those kind of laws and the US was who came and rescued them.....