-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
NDAA and the Withdrawn Veto.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: 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:
The controversy started yesterday when word came down that the White House had withdrawn it's veto threat. From Politico December 12: this is important, because last month this was the reason given for a veto threat: 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:
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: However from section 1032 there is a clarification: 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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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
Comments:
Order comments Newest to Oldest Refresh Comments
Comment by 
wickedpam on 12/15/2011 13:49:37
wickedpam on 12/15/2011 13:49:37
aawwwwwww!
Morning
Morning
Comment by 
Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 14:01:04
Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 14:01:04
Squeeee! Morning!
Comment by 
Raine on 12/15/2011 14:25:11
Amen.
I am still trying to write a blog this morning --
Between the NDAA outrage and other things, I am feeling a bit overwhelmed this morning.
Raine on 12/15/2011 14:25:11
Quote by TriSec:
IT IS FINISHED.
I am still trying to write a blog this morning --
Between the NDAA outrage and other things, I am feeling a bit overwhelmed this morning.
Comment by 
BobR on 12/15/2011 14:35:05
BobR on 12/15/2011 14:35:05
Comment by BobR on 12/15/2011 14:36:22
BobR on 12/15/2011 14:36:22
Remember the debate over this photo a couple weeks ago?
It's not photoshopped... but it's also not what it claims to be.
It's not photoshopped... but it's also not what it claims to be.
Comment by wickedpam on 12/15/2011 15:00:16
wickedpam on 12/15/2011 15:00:16
really? The show doesn't agree there should be a law about driving while texting? Do they ever just watch how traffic moves these days?
Comment by Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 15:19:57
Umm Bobber, I think it was Mala or might have been Raine. Or hell, Scoop might have posted it. Anyway this was mentioned a day or so ago.
Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 15:19:57
Quote by BobR:
Remember the debate over this photo a couple weeks ago?
It's not photoshopped... but it's also not what it claims to be.
Umm Bobber, I think it was Mala or might have been Raine. Or hell, Scoop might have posted it. Anyway this was mentioned a day or so ago.
Comment by Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 15:20:38
Two words, Mala: Los Angeles.
Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 15:20:38
Quote by wickedpam:
really? The show doesn't agree there should be a law about driving while texting? Do they ever just watch how traffic moves these days?
Two words, Mala: Los Angeles.
Comment by 
TriSec on 12/15/2011 15:22:40
TriSec on 12/15/2011 15:22:40
Last night's TRMS is electrifying - the statements by her first guest. I'm going to have to get up from my desk in a minute.
And you heard it there last night - the Republicans oppose bringing the troops home for the holidays and would rather have them stay in harm's way. This illustrates more than anything else what is wrong with the GOP.
(Historical note - GOP used to be isolationist and anti-war...at least until 70 years and 8 days ago.)
And you heard it there last night - the Republicans oppose bringing the troops home for the holidays and would rather have them stay in harm's way. This illustrates more than anything else what is wrong with the GOP.
(Historical note - GOP used to be isolationist and anti-war...at least until 70 years and 8 days ago.)
Comment by Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 15:27:35
Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 15:27:35
Comment by Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 15:28:35
Oh? Teddy Roosevelt was isolationist? Really?
Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 15:28:35
Quote by TriSec:
Last night's TRMS is electrifying - the statements by her first guest. I'm going to have to get up from my desk in a minute.
And you heard it there last night - the Republicans oppose bringing the troops home for the holidays and would rather have them stay in harm's way. This illustrates more than anything else what is wrong with the GOP.
(Historical note - GOP used to be isolationist and anti-war...at least until 70 years and 8 days ago.)
Oh? Teddy Roosevelt was isolationist? Really?
Comment by wickedpam on 12/15/2011 15:29:55
hey, we live in our cars here too, so I don't think car culture is a good excuse
wickedpam on 12/15/2011 15:29:55
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by wickedpam:
really? The show doesn't agree there should be a law about driving while texting? Do they ever just watch how traffic moves these days?
Two words, Mala: Los Angeles.
hey, we live in our cars here too, so I don't think car culture is a good excuse
Comment by Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 15:33:08
There is this total sense of entitlement in LA though
Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 15:33:08
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by wickedpam:
really? The show doesn't agree there should be a law about driving while texting? Do they ever just watch how traffic moves these days?
Two words, Mala: Los Angeles.
hey, we live in our cars here too, so I don't think car culture is a good excuse
There is this total sense of entitlement in LA though
Comment by TriSec on 12/15/2011 15:41:35
Mmmm....he was a civilian when he rode up San Juan, and got the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the end of the Russia/Japan war in '05. Not very war-mongery, IMHO.
But there was that Great White Fleet thing.
TriSec on 12/15/2011 15:41:35
Quote by Mondobubba:
Oh? Teddy Roosevelt was isolationist? Really?
Mmmm....he was a civilian when he rode up San Juan, and got the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the end of the Russia/Japan war in '05. Not very war-mongery, IMHO.
But there was that Great White Fleet thing.
Comment by Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 15:42:23
Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 15:42:23
Oh check out Salon for Glen Greenwald's latest rant on how evil Obama is. :eyeroll: He is, of course wrong.
Comment by wickedpam on 12/15/2011 15:44:54
I don't think its limited to LA
wickedpam on 12/15/2011 15:44:54
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by wickedpam:
really? The show doesn't agree there should be a law about driving while texting? Do they ever just watch how traffic moves these days?
Two words, Mala: Los Angeles.
hey, we live in our cars here too, so I don't think car culture is a good excuse
There is this total sense of entitlement in LA though
I don't think its limited to LA
Comment by 
Scoopster on 12/15/2011 15:46:21
Scoopster on 12/15/2011 15:46:21
Mornin' all! 
I've been so fatigued the past week or so.. extra time at work plus sleeping problems plus staying up late baking cookies is kicking my ass!
I've been so fatigued the past week or so.. extra time at work plus sleeping problems plus staying up late baking cookies is kicking my ass!
Comment by TriSec on 12/15/2011 15:50:46
TriSec on 12/15/2011 15:50:46
Hey now, we had a major rail crash here on the MBTA that made the national news, caused by a texting conductor.
Comment by Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 15:53:33
1. TR was a member of the New York State Volunteer Cavalry, commissioned as a Lt Co.
2. Isolationism opposite number isn't war mongering. It is intervention in foreign affairs.
TR and many other Republicans in the Progessive era were stongly interventionist. Futhermore, I can't think of a bigger interventionist move than brokering a peace deal in the Russo-Japanese war.
Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 15:53:33
Quote by TriSec:Quote by Mondobubba:
Oh? Teddy Roosevelt was isolationist? Really?
Mmmm....he was a civilian when he rode up San Juan, and got the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the end of the Russia/Japan war in '05. Not very war-mongery, IMHO.
But there was that Great White Fleet thing.
1. TR was a member of the New York State Volunteer Cavalry, commissioned as a Lt Co.
2. Isolationism opposite number isn't war mongering. It is intervention in foreign affairs.
TR and many other Republicans in the Progessive era were stongly interventionist. Futhermore, I can't think of a bigger interventionist move than brokering a peace deal in the Russo-Japanese war.
Comment by TriSec on 12/15/2011 15:59:33
TriSec on 12/15/2011 15:59:33
You have to admit, they were very pretty ships.
Comment by Scoopster on 12/15/2011 16:03:40
TR did also reaffirm the Monroe Doctrine policies of US intervention in the affairs of Western Hemisphere countries as well..
Scoopster on 12/15/2011 16:03:40
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by TriSec:Quote by Mondobubba:
Oh? Teddy Roosevelt was isolationist? Really?
Mmmm....he was a civilian when he rode up San Juan, and got the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the end of the Russia/Japan war in '05. Not very war-mongery, IMHO.
But there was that Great White Fleet thing.
1. TR was a member of the New York State Volunteer Cavalry, commissioned as a Lt Co.
2. Isolationism opposite number isn't war mongering. It is intervention in foreign affairs.
TR and many other Republicans in the Progessive era were stongly interventionist. Futhermore, I can't think of a bigger interventionist move than brokering a peace deal in the Russo-Japanese war.
TR did also reaffirm the Monroe Doctrine policies of US intervention in the affairs of Western Hemisphere countries as well..
Comment by BobR on 12/15/2011 16:12:47
Ah - Mala posted it on Tues afternoon... Sorry Mala - I missed it.
BobR on 12/15/2011 16:12:47
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by BobR:
Remember the debate over this photo a couple weeks ago?
It's not photoshopped... but it's also not what it claims to be.
Umm Bobber, I think it was Mala or might have been Raine. Or hell, Scoop might have posted it. Anyway this was mentioned a day or so ago.
Ah - Mala posted it on Tues afternoon... Sorry Mala - I missed it.
Comment by wickedpam on 12/15/2011 16:14:53
no worries - I figured people may not have seen the my link
wickedpam on 12/15/2011 16:14:53
Quote by BobR:Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by BobR:
Remember the debate over this photo a couple weeks ago?
It's not photoshopped... but it's also not what it claims to be.
Umm Bobber, I think it was Mala or might have been Raine. Or hell, Scoop might have posted it. Anyway this was mentioned a day or so ago.
Ah - Mala posted it on Tues afternoon... Sorry Mala - I missed it.
no worries - I figured people may not have seen the my link
Comment by 
velveeta jones on 12/15/2011 16:31:18
velveeta jones on 12/15/2011 16:31:18
Morning all!!
Comment by 
livingonli on 12/15/2011 16:44:03
livingonli on 12/15/2011 16:44:03
Good morning everyone. I wanted a cute kitty picture.
Comment by Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 16:48:35
Oh totally!
Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 16:48:35
Quote by TriSec:
You have to admit, they were very pretty ships.
Oh totally!
Comment by Raine on 12/15/2011 17:12:12
new blog is up...
Raine on 12/15/2011 17:12:12
Quote by Mondobubba:
Oh check out Salon for Glen Greenwald's latest rant on how evil Obama is. :eyeroll: He is, of course wrong.
Comment by BobR on 12/15/2011 17:13:56
Morning!
BobR on 12/15/2011 17:13:56
Quote by velveeta jones:
Morning all!!
Morning!
Comment by Raine on 12/15/2011 17:20:20
Raine on 12/15/2011 17:20:20
Sorry for the HUGE delay this morning -- I literally spent the morning trying to find valid proof of the claims about indefinite detention.
I tried to write this is non biased as possible.
I tried to write this is non biased as possible.
Comment by Raine on 12/15/2011 17:37:00
Raine on 12/15/2011 17:37:00
Roll Call has an interesting article about the NDAA as well.
And this from WaPo
I am aware that the ACLU is still concerned -- but well, I just don;t know why they keep saying that the office of POTUS (the executive branch) can
And this from WaPo
The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the measure, arguing that it would have required the military, rather than civilian law enforcement, to detain terrorism suspects apprehended on American soil. Administration officials also said that a provision granting waiver authority to the defense secretary was insufficient.
I am aware that the ACLU is still concerned -- but well, I just don;t know why they keep saying that the office of POTUS (the executive branch) can
Human rights and civil liberties groups, which have said that the bill would allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens, on Wednesday urged President Obama not to approve the measure. Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, said in a statement that if Obama signs the measure, “it will damage both his legacy and America’s reputation for upholding the rule of law.â€
Comment by TriSec on 12/15/2011 18:04:51
Tri-Sec in a box.
Yes, I live on the island of Misfit Toys this year.
TriSec on 12/15/2011 18:04:51
Tri-Sec in a box.
Yes, I live on the island of Misfit Toys this year.
Comment by Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 18:05:14
Which I just read. Clearly none of the hysterical, doom-saying hand wringers have actually read the damn bill.
Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 18:05:14
Quote by Raine:new blog is up...Quote by Mondobubba:
Oh check out Salon for Glen Greenwald's latest rant on how evil Obama is. :eyeroll: He is, of course wrong.
Which I just read. Clearly none of the hysterical, doom-saying hand wringers have actually read the damn bill.
the Salon
Comment by Raine on 12/15/2011 18:14:15
That was my intent.
So why are people freaking out over the withdrawn VETO? And I ask here, as I know I can get a rational reply. I am seeing a lot of irrationality going on in a few corners of the inter tubes.
Raine on 12/15/2011 18:14:15
Quote by Mondobubba:Which I just read. Clearly none of the hysterical, doom-saying hand wringers have actually read the damn bill.
So why are people freaking out over the withdrawn VETO? And I ask here, as I know I can get a rational reply. I am seeing a lot of irrationality going on in a few corners of the inter tubes.
Comment by Raine on 12/15/2011 18:24:10
LINK
Raine on 12/15/2011 18:24:10
Habeas rights for any detainee irrespective of citizenship will remain intact (and backed up by the Supreme Court), and citizens can’t be held in military custody. The reason the president decided to sign the bill and reversed his previous decision to veto the bill was because he wanted the discretion to hold civilian trials for suspected terrorists. The bill in its current form allows him to do that, hence the non-veto.
Comment by Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 18:41:01
My response is read the pertinet sections of the bill for christ sake.
Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 18:41:01
Quote by Raine:That was my intent.Quote by Mondobubba:Which I just read. Clearly none of the hysterical, doom-saying hand wringers have actually read the damn bill.
So why are people freaking out over the withdrawn VETO? And I ask here, as I know I can get a rational reply. I am seeing a lot of irrationality going on in a few corners of the inter tubes.
My response is read the pertinet sections of the bill for christ sake.
Comment by Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 18:56:23
Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 18:56:23
Beavis you mean to tell me that you don't know what navi-fucking-gation buttons are? Jesus Christ on toast points.
Comment by TriSec on 12/15/2011 18:57:17
TriSec on 12/15/2011 18:57:17
Ya know, when you execute the little drummer boy by firing squad, if you listen hard enough the rifles also go "pa-rum-pum-pum-PUM!"
Sorry, Clearly I'm off my meds again.
Sorry, Clearly I'm off my meds again.
Comment by TriSec on 12/15/2011 19:14:00
Mmm, ya know the Last Supper was a Passover feast. Not knowing what one eats at Passover, I'm disappointed that Jesus didn't pick something yummier. Wine I get, but Matzo?
Jesus took the cheesecake, and passing it to his disciples said, "Take this, all of you and eat it..."
Sunday Mass would be way more popular, don't you think?
TriSec on 12/15/2011 19:14:00
Quote by Mondobubba:
Beavis you mean to tell me that you don't know what navi-fucking-gation buttons are? Jesus Christ on toast points.
Mmm, ya know the Last Supper was a Passover feast. Not knowing what one eats at Passover, I'm disappointed that Jesus didn't pick something yummier. Wine I get, but Matzo?
Jesus took the cheesecake, and passing it to his disciples said, "Take this, all of you and eat it..."
Sunday Mass would be way more popular, don't you think?
Comment by Scoopster on 12/15/2011 19:58:58
Scoopster on 12/15/2011 19:58:58
Hmm Raine - someone just point this out to me Re: Section 1032:
(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.
Note the word bolded. "Requirement". Elsewhere, it states that for non-American citizens it actually is a requirement to do so. All this passage means is that it is optional, not that it isn't completely lawful (although still heavily violating the constitution).http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being
UPDATE I: 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.
But you don't have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: "1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland."
Comment by Raine on 12/15/2011 21:11:46
People are very hung up on this word REQUIREMENT can some give me a legal interpretation of that?
Raine on 12/15/2011 21:11:46
Quote by Scoopster:
Hmm Raine - someone just point this out to me Re: Section 1032:(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.
Note the word bolded. "Requirement". Elsewhere, it states that for non-American citizens it actually is a requirement to do so. All this passage means is that it is optional, not that it isn't completely lawful (although still heavily violating the constitution).http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being
UPDATE I: 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.
But you don't have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: "1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland."
Comment by Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 21:14:33
It is one thing for the not so bright Lindsey Graham to say something about a section of the bill on the Senate floor. If it doesn't say that in the bill, then he is full of shite.
Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 21:14:33
Quote by Raine:People are very hung up on this word REQUIREMENT can some give me a legal interpretation of that?Quote by Scoopster:
Hmm Raine - someone just point this out to me Re: Section 1032:(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.
Note the word bolded. "Requirement". Elsewhere, it states that for non-American citizens it actually is a requirement to do so. All this passage means is that it is optional, not that it isn't completely lawful (although still heavily violating the constitution).http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being
UPDATE I: 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.
But you don't have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: "1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland."
It is one thing for the not so bright Lindsey Graham to say something about a section of the bill on the Senate floor. If it doesn't say that in the bill, then he is full of shite.
Comment by Raine on 12/15/2011 21:18:16
Raine on 12/15/2011 21:18:16
And plaese know, when I say hung up-- it isn't intended to be dismissive.
Lyndsey graham said in the middle of November -- the wording of the bill was changed since then.
Lyndsey graham said in the middle of November -- the wording of the bill was changed since then.
Comment by Raine on 12/15/2011 21:26:22
Raine on 12/15/2011 21:26:22
here is a background on the changes that led to the removal of the Veto threat, it is from the White house Press Sec:
Background on Changes
Softening the “requirement†for military custody:
The word “requirement†was removed from the title of the provision that purports to require military custody for certain terrorists.
Added a paragraph to the military custody provision that clearly states that “[n]othing in [it] shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.â€
Providing the President additional discretion over implementation:
Provided the President with the authority to develop implementing procedures for Section 1022, which purports to require military custody of certain terrorists. Among other things, this provides the President with additional discretion to minimize the impact of the provision on counterterrorism operations, and in some cases to limit the application or implementation of the requirement to place individuals in military custody.
Provided the President with discretion to ensure that ongoing interrogations are not disrupted by this provision, stating in the conference report that he can decide when these determinations need to be made and when and how they are to be implemented.
Increasing the flexibility of the waiver process:
The waiver authority was transferred from the Secretary of Defense to the President, who can delegate that authority to those individuals who are positioned to make these judgments and to do so in a way that will minimize the disruption of counterterrorism operations.
Ensuring that we track current law and minimize risks associated with legislating on AUMF:
Made our requested modifications to the provision that codifies military detention authority under the September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Though this provision remains unnecessary, the changes ensure that we are merely restating our existing legal authorities and minimize the risk of unnecessary and distracting litigation.
Removed Provisions in the House Bill:
The conference report does not include language from the House bill that would have eliminated our authority to use our federal courts from our counterterrorism arsenal.
Comment by Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 21:49:40
Mondobubba on 12/15/2011 21:49:40
Comment by Raine on 12/16/2011 22:54:20
Raine on 12/16/2011 22:54:20
Test
Internet test...
Internet test...