The ACLU said last night that the bill contains “harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world” and added: “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage his legacy.” Human Rights Watch said that Obama’s decision “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad” and that “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”

bbauska wrote:DF,
I think you are dismissing out of hand the fact that a US citizen is entitled to a court of law, and this bill does violate that right. I feel the same way you do concerning terrorists, whether they be US or foreign nationals. That being said, we must follow the rules set forth in our nation. They should be accused, tried, convicted, and hung from the highest tree with limited media attention.

The only military custody needs should be for foreign national terrorists, and US military (i.e. Nidal Hasan).

The ACLU said last night that the bill contains “harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens . . .

We should take care, as Brad does, to distinguish between 'terrorists' and 'suspected terrorists'.

theodorelogan wrote:Steve, just because Obama points at someone and says "terrorist" does not make that person guilty of anything. Isn't this kind of authoritarianism exactly what jury trials are supposed to prevent?

bbauska wrote:DF,
I was only analyzing your response to Neal's statement. Neal can be a bomb thrower, no doubt on that, but the signing into law a ruling that would allow indefinite detention of a US citizen is violating the Constitution. I cannot stand by that law. If Holder and President Obama want to give US rights to foreign nationals, I really don't care what their wants are. It does not apply.

I do agree that the current administration cares more about image than safety. (Fast and Furious proves that...)

Indefinite Detention: Section 1031
Detainees upon arrival at Camp X-Ray, January 2002. In May 2006, the UN Committee against Torture condemned prisoners' treatment at Guantánamo Bay, noting that indefinite detention constitutes per se a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture.

Pursuant to the AUMF passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the NDAA text affirms the President's authority to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces," under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of hostilities." The text also authorizes trial by Military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."[13] An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention of American citizens, without trial, was rejected.[14]

Addressing previous conflict with the Obama Administration regarding the wording of the Senate text, the Senate-House compromise text also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authority for Use of Military Force."

bbauska wrote:If the amendment that specifically disallows indefinite detention was defeated, then indefinite detention is allowable in the bill.

bbauska wrote:Then why the need for the amendment in the first place?

The White House had previously threatened to veto the Senate version of the Act,[4] arguing that "the authorities granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people... Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk." The White House also argued that provisions requiring military detention of terrorism suspects on American soil were “inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.” After a Senate-House compromise text explicitly ruled out any limitation of the President's authorities, and removed the requirement of military detention for terrorism suspects arrested in the United States, the White House issued a statement saying that it would not veto the bill.[15]

During debate within the Senate and before the Act's passage, Senator Mark Udall introduced an amendment intended to forbid the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens;[16] the amendment was rejected by a vote of 38–60.[17] Udall subsequently voted for the Act in the joint session of congress that passed it, and though he remained "extremely troubled" by the detainee provisions, he promised to "push Congress to conduct the maximum amount of oversight possible."[18]

A later amendment to preserve current law concerning U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens, and others captured within the United States, sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein, was accepted 99 to 1.[19] Senator Feinstein has argued that current law does not allow the indefinite detention of American citizens, while the Obama Administration, Senators Carl Levin, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mike Lee, Rand Paul and others like Congressional Representatives Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul and Justin Amash have argued that it does.[5]

bbauska wrote:Then why the need for the amendment in the first place?