About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

NDAA and the Withdrawn Veto.
Author: Raine    Date: 12/15/2011 16:53:03

I'm going to try to lay this out to the very best of my understanding about the President withdrawing his threat to Veto the NDAA.

From the National Journal, regarding the hotly debated National Defense Authorization Act:
The bill requires military custody for suspects linked to al-Qaida or its affiliates, even if they are captured in the U.S., with an exemption for American citizens and lawful resident aliens. House and Senate leaders made some changes during conference committee to assuage the administration’s concerns, adding “assurances” it would not affect existing criminal enforcement and national security waivers of the FBI or any other domestic law enforcement agency. They also gave the president the authority to waive the military-detention provisions.
I post this article because many good people are out there claiming that the President has been given the authorization to detain any United States citizens indefinitely. There is also this from the Armed Services Committee:

REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
In cases such as the Christmas Day Bomber, where a foreign terrorist is caught in a plot to attack the United States, establishes a new requirement for military custody. This provision only applies to individuals who are part of, or substantially supporting, Al Qaeda or associated forces AND have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. It is vital that terrorists bent on waging war against American freedom are treated according to the laws of war, not treated like simple criminals.
-Provides a waiver for the Secretary of Defense when such a requirement is not in the national security interests of the United States.
-Facilitates greater intelligence gathering from foreign terrorist
-Explicitly exempts U.S. citizens from the requirement.

The controversy started yesterday when word came down that the White House had withdrawn it's veto threat. From Politico December 12:
The Obama administration warned last month and reiterated as recently as Friday afternoon that President Barack Obama was likely to veto the legislation if provisions designed to push terror suspects into military custody were not changed.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said the new language should meet the White House's concerns, though he stopped just short of saying that the White House accepted the new wording.
....
The conference-approved bill contains new language seeking to make clear that the FBI's authority to question and detain suspected terrorists is not impacted by the bill's requirement that foreigners who attack the U.S. be placed in military custody absent a waiver. The conferenced legislation moves that waiver authority from the Secretary of Defense to the president.

"There is two or three provisions to make it 100 percent clear that there is not interference with the FBI or other civilian law enforcement," Levin said.
this is important, because last month this was the reason given for a veto threat:
The White House threatened on Thursday threatened a possible veto of the annual defense authorization bill if it contains language aimed at forcing Al Qaeda suspects into military custody rather than civilian courts.
You can read the entire statement from the office of management and budget here. I posted widely -- as did many others a letter written by representative Adam Smith:
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.”


The wording of this authorization bill was changed to reflect and address the Administration concerns. I do not -- and believe me, I have looked -- see where it says that United States citizens can be detained indefinitely:From section 1031 (part D) regarding detention:
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
However from section 1032 there is a clarification:
(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.
here is an addition link to a PDF link in case my temp query at Thomas.gov expires. The pertinent information begins at page 426.

So, my question: Can someone honestly explain how this means a United States resident or Lawful Alien Resident alien can be detained?

There are a lot of thing to be upset with regarding this bill, -- like the fact that it codifies existing law. I don't see why the President withdrawing a veto threat because his request was granted was made should be so controversial. That is politics, to be quite honest. A post over at ABL says it quite well:
In reality, the conference report was substantially revised and made veto unworthy. It’s really not that complicated — the original bill (particularly the House version) sucked, Obama threatened to kill it if the horrible provisions survived, Congress revised it, and Obama agreed to the revised version. Much like any negotiation.


There is a lot of good stuff in this authorization act as well, especially for our military and their families. Take a read over here at Carl Levin's website. The other thing that is very important, is that no matter how one feels about war and funding the military -- we need to authorize its funding. That is just a reality.

We have men and woman coming home, we have vets and members of the military that will need the help this authorization bill provides. In case you forgot, today ends our time in Iraq. It's over, over there. Now we begin the next phase of taking care of our military members and their families. The NDAA goes a long way in doing just that.

So why do people keep saying that Obama can now detain any United States Citizen? I'm not looking for a fight, I just don't understand why people don't want to believe what the act actually says about dention, United States citizens and legal Alien residents. Where in the bill does it state such a thing?


&

Raine
 

48 comments (Latest Comment: 12/16/2011 22:54:20 by Raine)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati