Obama will not veto National Defense Authorization Act

[Javaman]

(and there it is)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/14/white-house-will-not-veto-national-defense-authorization-act/

The White House on Wednesday said it would not veto the controversial National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

President Barack Obama’s spokesman Jay Carney said lawmakers who crafted a compromise version from rival Senate and House versions of the legislation had addressed his worries about proposed tough rules on detainees.

The legislation has been the subject of considerable criticism.

At one point the bill contained a provision that would have authorized the U.S. to use military force anywhere there were terrorism suspects, including within the U.S. itself. The American Civil Liberties Union described it as authorizing a “worldwide war without end.”

Much more at link...

[noise]

1. Why don't you trust secret panels

to decide whether someone should be detained until the end of the war on terror?

[limpyhobbler]

6. :rofl:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Well, it will be our freedom loving military doing the deciding who is to be kidnapped.

Or is that "detained'? Without trial.

[MannyGoldstein]

67. How did you know that the secret panels are secret?

That's a state secret, therefore you are jeopardizing our nation's safety. You could be secretly imprisoned forever without judicial recourse for what you've done.

(The Founders are spinning in their graves with sufficient energy to light the entire East Coast.)

[sarcasmo]

2. I didn't see the not, this is bad news.

Thought there was hope he would us the veto.

[Tx4obama]

12. There is NO reason to veto it, please see comment #11 :) n/t

[Mimosa]

16. Tex 4 Obama, please explain.

Can you give us some links?

[Tx4obama]

36. Here is Section 1032 - American citizens in The USA are exempt

http://tinyurl.com/8abvlvx

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(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.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(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.

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

[Aerows]

40. It's not clear cut

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/does-the-ndaa-authorize-detention-of-us-citizens/

It isn't clear cut. I included a link and portions of this article at the bottom here.

[Tx4obama]

41. Here is Section 1031 - which includes the Feinstein amendment language (e) 'bolded'

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(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.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Authorities- 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.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c112FEVhCz:e548990:

[Aerows]

44. Read that analysis

It explains why the Feinstein amendment doesn't quite cover it completely. Also, there IS a waiver that can be invoked in the interest of "National Security".

[provis99]

50. it says throwing Americans in jail forever is OPTIONAL.

people have reminded you of this time and time again, and you stubbornly refuse to admit reality.

[JDPriestly]

66. Your link timed out. The problems are with section 1031, not 1032, as I understand it.

Here is the language of the link for the entire bill, I think.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.1119.ENR:

This link won't work because it will time out, but you might try that query for yourself.

I see some discussion about using the National Guard in drug cases.

I couldn't find the section that everyone is objecting to about terrorism. Can someone else find it?

[peacebird]

3. Obama just totally lost my vote

[jefferson_dem]

5. again?

[peacebird]

91. Hubby says he will not vote for him period. I fluctuate between no and he's better than repukes

[bhikkhu]

8. Why? n/t

[RC]

4. Another reason to Primary Obama

[Odin2005]

7. Epic Obama FAIL.

[bhikkhu]

9. Why?

I'm looking at a copy of the bill the senate passed and don't see the problem. What section bothers you?

[AtomicKitten]

20. They are ignoring sections 1031 and 1032 which explicitly excludes

American citizens and Green Card holders.

Norman Goldman is going off on the radio tonight on this. He is pissed at what he calls the "left blogosphere" just making shit up to fuel their outrage de jour.

[Tx4obama]

42. Yes you are correct. See comments #36 and #41 for the text of those two sections. n/t

[SaintPete]

74. There is NOTHING which "explicitly excludes" detaining US Citizens

the language says:

"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. "

As an example. the police are not "required" to give you a ticket for speeding. You can be let off with a warning. It is up to the discretion of the officer. But the lack of any "requirement" to ticket in every scenario in no way "explicitly excludes" anyone from getting a ticket.

Likewise, the lack of any "requirement" to detain a citizen of the United States in military custody in no way "explicitly excludes" a citizen of the United States from being detained in military custody.

Show me where I'm wrong.

[AtomicKitten]

82. Here --

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.

[SaintPete]

86. I don't think you read past my subjec line

because I used that SAME piece of text to explain why there was no explicit exclusion. I'll repeat from post #74...

the language says:

"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. "

That language does not show any explicit exclusion. As an example. the police are not "required" to give you a ticket for speeding...you can be let off with a warning...it is up to the discretion of the officer.

But the lack of any "requirement" to ticket in every scenario in no way "explicitly excludes" anyone from getting a ticket. Don't you agree?

Likewise, the lack of any "requirement" to detain a citizen of the United States in military custody in no way "explicitly excludes" a citizen from being detained.

Show me where I'm wrong--NOTE: repeating the same text againdoesn't hep, it only makes it look as if you are not actually reading the responses.

[AtomicKitten]

88. I was being ironic.

Because the answer is in the question.

Previous version:

“The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

Amended version:

“The authorization to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

The amended version also states:

“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.”

* So, the bill does not allow the military to indefinitely detain United States citizens and legal residents.

[SaintPete]

89. That's Not Correct!

here's the latest revision from the congressional record. As you can see, Feinstin's "Nothing in this section shall be construed" amendment is included, and is shown in bold, green text. But the "requirement" text that YOU claim has been changed to "authorized" (shown in bold, blue text) still stands. Care to comment?

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(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.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

[FONT COLOR="green"](e) Authorities- 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.[/FONT COLOR="green"]

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).


SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(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.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

[FONT COLOR="blue"] (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.[/FONT COLOR="blue"]

(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.

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

[SaintPete]

90. No response to post #89?

which shows clearly that your claim was inaccurate?

[spanone]

45. it's easier to whiz on Obama than read an article.

[Tx4obama]

14. There is NO reason to veto it, please see comment #11 :) n/t

[xiamiam]

51. there is NO reason to vote for it..nt

[Tx4obama]

53. So, you're against 'the whole DoDA bill'? or just sections 1031 and 1032

Because the majority of what is in the bill 'does' need to be passed.

You do know that the bill contains TONS of stuff right?

H R 1540: To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes

[green917]

76. Really?

We NEED to pass a highly bloated $650 Billion military budget with egregious violations of human rights in it? I beg to differ.

There is no requirement to detain American citizens but there isn't an explicit exemption from doing so either. Silly me, I thought that you had to pass a Constitutional Amendment to overturn another Constitutional Amendment. The founding fathers would be searching for tea to dump into the harbor over this piece of crap, bloated, unnecessary piece of legislation. Funding for our military has become a kabuki act...more money for the contractors and more grist for the mill, as it were.

And that's not to mention the fact that the President, yet again, has said he would do 1 thing (veto this legislation) and then turned around and done the complete opposite (now pledged to sign it into law). Regardless, when you say that we NEED to pass this piece of egregious crap, sell crazy someplace else...we don't need any here.

[savalez]

10. "Don't buy into the hysteria"

Norm Goldman just did a piece on this on his show and said to not buy into the mass hysteria about it. He suggested that those concerned read Section 1031 and 1032 by searching: National Defense Authorization Act section 1031 and 1032. He said something about one blog post distorted the whole perception it.

Thought I'd pass this along.

[Aerows]

72. He's the only one I've heard that people are discussing

that says this bill is okay. Feinstein is trying to introduce a bill to explicitly prevent the detention of Americans. Would she do that if this bill was clear cut? Bernie Sanders has condemned it. The ACLU has condemned it. An Admiral Judge Advocate has condemned it.

Yet I'm supposed to believe some random trial lawyer?

[savalez]

79. He spent another hour on it today.

He didn't say he was enamored by it, he just put it into perspective. A lot of people were against it, including the President, until new provisions were added to it (Feinstein's provision included). Only Six Democrats, six Republicans and one independent opposed the bill. I think a veto would just be overridden. That's not even close.

[Tx4obama]

11. There is NO reason to veto it.

From the link in the OP:

The latest version of the bill, drafted by the House-Senate conference committee, kept both provisions. But it exempted U.S. citizens from the requirement for terror suspects to be held in military custody and included language stating that the bill did not extend new authority to detainee U.S. citizens.
==========


And FEINSTEIN's amendment to the bill passed in the Senate right before the DoDA Act bill passed.

Text added to the bill's Section 1032 due to the Feinstein amendment:

(e) 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.

===

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. You like the idea of the military being able to pick of "suspects" anywhere in the world?

And, "detain" them indefinitely?

[SomethingFishy]

24. Oh... so it's ok as long as they aren't US citizens...

Seriously?

Are you telling me you would have supported this when Bush was President?

[noise]

27. That appears to be the defense

Right out of 1984. "Do it to Julia."

[spooked911]

28. heh, it's very clever wording but still bad

"exempted U.S. citizens from the requirement for terror suspects to be held in military custody and included language stating that the bill did not extend new authority to detainee (sic) U.S. citizens. "

All this means is that US citizens aren't automatically held in military custody, unlike foreigners. The new authority bit is a fig leaf that is meaningless as Bush/Obama have already detained US citizens, so there's is nothing new here.

The Feinstein amendment is the same-- just a fillip that is almost meaningless of the powers that Bush/Obama have used already.

[sarcasmo]

39. Glad they added (e)

[Aerows]

73. Bernie Sanders thinks there is

Diane Feinstein is creating a bill that explicitly prohibits the detention of American citizens. Would either of them be doing it if this law didn't allow for the detention of American citizens?

Accept it. This bill should have been vetoed, and Obama made a mistake. This is much bigger than one man - this is our civil rights as American citizens we are talking about. It's a badly worded bill, should have been vetoed, and people who speak up and say so aren't doing it to "bash Obama" or because they "haven't read the bill" or because they are idiots.

They are speaking up because this law sucks.

[AverageJoe90]

83. At least that was fixed.

But I'm still afraid this legislation could be abused by crooks within our gov't...........

[Aerows]

13. AP article from today

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFsyaljotNCsnPSzq9tjRtOkPKZg?docId=e3c1b02ccc1a42b78e94120a4a2f53a5

Salient point:

The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention.

Are we suggesting that the AP is misreporting this?

[Tx4obama]

29. Yes, apparently the AP is misreporting it. Perhaps they did not read the Feinstein amendment.

I can't read the article on the link you posted, when I click on it it takes be to a log in page.

Is there different direct link to the article?

[bhikkhu]

30. Are you saying it isn't done without this legislation?

Having read section 1031, it states that where we are at war (as authorized by congress), then people engaged in war against us can be placed in military detention. It does say "indefinite", but clarifies that with the usual "end of hostilities" clause, which has always been the rule. It also allows for military tribunals, trials and so forth as well, which is customary law. and it does specifically exempt US citizens and those here legally from military detention.

Having read the bill, its hard for me to see how it establishes anything that wasn't the case during WWII, or the Korean War, or Vietnam; other than that the current one (pointless as one might view it) is against a trans-national group rather than a nation. Its a little more complicated, but as far as this bill I don't see the problem...there's actually a lot to like about it, as far as environmental issues, alternative energy and conservation, the drawing down of costs and forces, etc.

[Tx4obama]

35. And Section 1032 exempts/excludes U.S. citizens that live in The USA.

I've read where some folks think that OWS'ers will be able to be picked up and detained indefinitely and that is FALSE.

[Aerows]

47. This is horribly written legislation

It is purposefully vague, and left wide open to interpretation.

[FirstLight]

48. ding!

...and that's WHY it should have been vetoed.

People say 'it's okay, Obama would never do that to us...' but our police are militarized, 1st and 4th Amendments are apparently not in effect, and now this.

regardless of who is president, this is downright scary. Recently re-read 1984 (first time since Jr high), and the parallels were f'in eerie...

[AverageJoe90]

84. Probably........

But even so, that may not stop some corrupt authorities from targeting innocent people who are seen as 'threats' to the Establishment.......

[TBF]

15. ACLU was recommending against it on Dec. 9th

but changes could've been made since then:

Help Us Stop Congress From Passing Indefinite Detention Bill!

Earlier this week we told you about Congress trying to rush a bill to the President’s desk that would authorize the military to go literally anywhere in the world to imprison civilians — even American citizens in the United States itself — without charge or trial. Prison based on suspicion alone.

But you certainly don’t need to take our word for it. In this new video, we’ve compiled some of the most disturbing statements made by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), in support of the sweeping bill.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA

[ForgoTheConsequence]

22. The ACLU just released this tonight.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 14, 2011

WASHINGTON – The White House today announced that it will support passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which 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. The final version of the NDAA was agreed to earlier this week by House and Senate conferees.

Though Obama administration had threatened to veto a previous version of the bill based on these provisions, it has reversed its position. The House is expected to pass the bill tonight and Senate will vote soon after.

“The president should more carefully consider the consequences of allowing this bill to become law,” Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “If President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill. We hope that the president will consider the long view of history before codifying indefinite detention without charge or trial.”

[TBF]

25. Thank you -

I agree with the ACLU. We'll see how this affects OWS. I am 100% sure they left this language in with US protestors in mind. JMHO.

[bhikkhu]

31. Unless congress declares war on the OWS movement, I think we're ok

there's no language in the bill that provides for military detention outside of the "theater of war". As broad as that may be with Al-qaeda, I don't see any stretch of interpretation that applies this to them. And it specifically exempts US citizens and legal residents anyway..

[OnyxCollie]

54. Congress didn't declare war on Japanese-Americans during WWII.

[TBF]

60. they sure didn't, and they have been preparing for unrest

I don't know how much more they can spell this out for folks ... KBR working on detention centers and Congress passes a law allowing for indefinite detainment. Duh!

"The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to expand existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs, KBR said."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/kbr-awarded-homeland-security-contract-worth-up-to-385m

[bhikkhu]

78. This bill wouldn't have allowed it.

...inasmuch as the Japanese were US citizens and legal residents, who are clearly exempted from military detention.

[OnyxCollie]

81. Uh, you do know that second-generation Japanese Americans,

US citizens and legal residents, were detained by the military, right?

All through an executive order from the President, right?

And that the SCOTUS went along with it, right?

FDR did that. Why wouldn't Obama?

Speaking of executive orders, has Obama said he would not use NSPD 51? It bookends very nicely with this bill.

[Berlin Expat]

70. Ah, but you need to think

in different terms.

For instance, what if it were clearly stated US policy that anyone who engages in what is defined as "terrorism" automatically LOSES their American citizenship by executive fiat?

Now, let's say that you get picked up on something loosely defined as "terrorist" activity.....let's say you participate in an OWS incident. Now, being charged with "terrorism", you will lose your US citizenship by the stroke of a pen. Incidentally, President Obama did say that anyone who engages in "terrorist activity against the USA automatically forfeits his or her citizenship".

If it is automatically assumed that you would forfeit your US citizenship by being charged with "terrorism", then the provisions applying to exemption of US citizens from mandatory military detention no longer apply to you.

The language is vague.....and things like this can be interpreted in a number of ways by a skilled lawyer for the State Department.

That's the danger, IMHO.

[bhikkhu]

80. What I see as more likely is that the fear of indefinite detention modifies people's behaviors

to the extent that if they believe a law has been passed that allows them to be indefinitely detained, even if the belief is complete fiction, they will behave more furtively, speak less, and less openly, they will put a greater emphasis on conformity and less on individuality, they will look at the behavior of others differently, etc...

If you've ever read about how life in a police state is, you get the idea, whether it was Libya under Qadhafi, or East Germany, Nazi Germany, Vichy France, or most parts of the old Soviet bloc.

One important point is that it isn't necessary to actually have any laws like that, what is important is to make people believe in and fear the possibility. So, we don't have any laws in this country that allow military detention of citizens or legal residents, and the use of the military for law enforcement within our borders is also prohibited. Congress hasn't passed any such laws, the president wouldn't sign them if he did, and people here wouldn't tolerate a government of that sort.

Who is it that is so determined to make people believe it is all otherwise? And why would anyone want to promote fear?

[xiamiam]

52. bingo..nt

[ProSense]

17. Here's

an article with some more information: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100218875

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Is that a flip-flop? Flop-flip? Or, just a SOP politician's lie?

[DocMac]

23. This is pissing a lot of people off. nt

[spooked911]

33. yeah, because it's outrageous and terrible and un-American

http://warisacrime.org

[Tx4obama]

43. I think the only reason people are pissed is because they have NOT read the bill

Sections 1031 and 1032 - and they are reading misinformation instead

[Aerows]

46. There are several people who have copied and pasted parts of the bill

And analysis by the ACLU and various other legal groups. I'm pretty sure those people have read the bill.

[spooked911]

57. I think you're wrong-- I think people are pissed because they see a system way out of control

just the money we spend on the military is fucking insane.

[TBF]

61. We are pissed off because we HAVE read the bill, and we know about KBR's contract to build detention

centers. How much more does this need to be spelled out for folks? KBR was awarded the contract in 2006 (blurb from WSJ to follow) ...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/kbr-awarded-homeland-security-contract-worth-up-to-385m

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- KBR, the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton Co. HAL +0.16% , said Tuesday it has been awarded a contingency contract from the Department of Homeland Security to supports its Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in the event of an emergency. The maximum total value of the contract is $385 million and consists of a 1-year base period with four 1-year options. KBR held the previous ICE contract from 2000 through 2005. The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to expand existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs ...

[SaintPete]

75. Actually, I'm pissed because I HAVE read the bill

what now?

[DocMac]

49. I agree.

And every site I visited today with this story had people making a lot of angry comments.

This won't go over well.

[TheKentuckian]

26. Well, to hell with him and every traitor that voted "aye". There should be consequences for

violating their oaths of office but since both parties and all three branches are in it over their eyeballs the entire system is well past wrecked and essentially irretrievable.

If this is the kind of leadership the American people wanted, I'm sure Bush/Cheney would have been willing to stay on as Emperor and High Regent or whatever and we could drop the illusion of democracy altogether.

Same direction, less inept, and able to play pied piper to segments that would revolt against Darth and Stupid.

[spooked911]

34. we're into deep deep corruption levels

[limpyhobbler]

32. lindsey graham 'shut up' video

It's probably already been posted elsewhere, but here is this

[Aerows]

38. An analysis

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/does-the-ndaa-authorize-detention-of-us-citizens/

This is about as nonpartisan as analysis gets. He has the same concerns I expressed - the language is vague and it doesn't require military detention of US citizens, but it doesn't explicitly deny it.

From the article:

"First, section 1031 is the explicit grant of detention authority. It no longer says anything about US citizenship, one way or the other. It is just like the AUMF in that respect. Of course, we need to recall that the Supreme Court in Hamdi had no trouble concluding that insofar as the AUMF provided detention authority for persons captured in combat in Afghanistan, that authority extended to US citizens (Hamdi left open the question whether the AUMF provided detention authority to other contexts, and if so whether citizenship would remain irrelevant in those other contexts). In any event, against this backdrop, section 1031 as currently written–and if examined in isolation–would not alter the somewhat uncertain status quo regarding the availability of detention for citizens. But 1031 does not stand in isolation. Consider section 1032.

Section 1032 is the supposedly-mandatory military detention provision—i.e., the idea that a subset of detainable persons (“covered persons” in the lingo of the statute) are not just detainable in theory, but affirmatively must be subject to military detention (though only until one of several disposition options, including civilian custody for criminal trial, is selected). Section 1032 then goes on, in subpart (b), to state expressly that US citizens are exempt from this “mandatory detention” requirement (though lawful permanent residents are not).

This obviously rules out the idea of a mandatory military detention for US citizens. But note that it tends to rule in the idea that the baseline grant of detention authority in 1031 does in fact extend to citizens. Otherwise there would be no need for an exclusion for citizens in section 1032, since the 1032 category is a subset of the larger 1031 category."

And if that isn't enough reading, here's another article by an Admiral and Judge Advocate General:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/admiral-and-judge-advocate-general-says-indefinite-military-detention-of-u-s-citizens-is-a-win-for-terrorists-the-enemy-is-just-laughing-over-this-because-they-will-have-gotten-another-victory.html

[spooked911]

58. thanks-- that was my impression too

[AverageJoe90]

85. Thanks for the link.

I am all for stopping terrorism, but when incompetence, and even outright criminality, ends up hurting innocent Americans, and when legislation covering that topic that isn't specific enough and could be severely abused, is passed........that's where the problem lies, in my view.

[Modern_Matthew]

55. He should veto it based on spending alone... nt

[caseymoz]

56. Not what it seems:

He was threatening to veto it because the law actually required him to sign a waver before having somebody disappear without charges. He didn't want that restriction!

Honest, that's why he was threatening. He wasn't standing up for our rights, he was unhappy it didn't give him enough power.

So, in this fight, neither branch of government was standing up for constitutional rights, and there's no reason to get upset for Obama caving.

Don't you feel better?

[Vinca]

59. I feel like it's 2006 and deja vu all over again.

[TBF]

62. Thank you.

Anyone who is not alarmed by this bill has not been paying attention.

[thescreaminghead]

63. This is really, really, really, really...

really, really, really, really, really bad.

[era veteran]

64. The assholes have the votes to override a veto.

They use the militarization of state and local police to get around Posse Comitatus Act.

[blkmusclmachine]

65. DC "Democrats" stand for NOTHING:

I am beyond DONE with these fools.

[blackspade]

68. Shocked! Not....

This is terrible legislation.

[NorthCarolina]

69. Huge surprise there

NOT.

[roamer65]

71. Is this America anymore?

[Paladin]

77. It's As If Obama Is Going Out Of His Way To Lose My Vote.

I'm afraid he may have succeeded......

[tjwash]

87. With 87 votes in place, it would have been a waste of time to even consider it

With 87 votes, he wasn't even going to bother talking about vetoing this bill...would have been a complete waste of time and energy. They would have an override vote in place the next day. Better to concentrate on getting the middle class tax cut extended and pushed through congress.before the congressional vacations.

If your gonna manufacture some poutrage, at least place the blame where it belongs...Feinstein in Cali was no surprise, but Boxer has me so pissed off I can't even see straight right now.