"Obama Prepares to Authorize Indefinite Detention of US Citizens for First Time Since McCarthy Era"

[Cali_Democrat]

Full Transcript: http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2011/12/19/obama_prepares_to_authorize_indefinite_detention

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, let’s remember that under the status quo, because of the way that the Bush and Obama administrations have interpreted their own powers in the original 2001 authorization to use military force, they already claim, the executive branch does, the power to indefinitely detain people. That’s what’s happening right now at Guantánamo. It’s what’s happening at Bagram and several other facilities. And the Obama administration has vehemently defended this power to put people into prison without any trial or charges for as long as they want to keep them there. Additionally, they—the Obama administration claims the power to target even American citizens as enemy combatants, and not just to detain them indefinitely, but to kill them, as well. That’s what they did with Anwar al-Awlaki, far from any battlefield, based on this theory that they already have this power, even before this bill is passed.

But what this bill will do, and it will be signed into law now by President Obama, as you indicated, is that it will be the first time that the United States Congress has codified the power of indefinite detention into the law since the McCarthy era of the 1950s. The 1950 Congress passed a bill saying that communists and subversives could be imprisoned without a trial, without full due process, based on the allegation that they presented a national threat, an emergency, a threat to the national security of the United States. President Truman, knowing that the bill would—the veto would be overridden, nonetheless vetoed it and said that it made a mockery of the Bill of Rights. That law was repealed in 1971 with the Non-Detention Act, that said you cannot hold people in prison without charging them with a crime. The war on terror has eroded that principle, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, but Congress is now, with the Democrats in control of the Senate and a Democratic president, is about to enact into law the first bill that will say that the military and the United States government do have this power. It’s muddled whether it applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, but it’s clearly indefinite detention, and there’s a very strong case to make that it includes U.S. citizens, as well, which, as we know, the Obama administration already claims anyway, and that’s what makes it so dangerous.

[MotherPetrie]

1. Talk about tarnishing his legacy.

[great white snark]

4. Greenwald? Yes, I agree.

Did he have one to trash in the first place?

[Dutchmaster]

110. Trash the messenger. Rush has taught you well my son.

[rhett o rick]

140. Yes I agree, take a deep breath and accept fascism. nm

[green917]

113. This will be his legacy!

If President Obama signs this bill into law, it's just another sign that our Democracy is well and truly dead and the Constitution is, indeed, "just a god damned piece of paper" as the last man to occupy the office opined.

[SunsetDreams]

2. I Prefer to look at the actual bill:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require18
ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.
21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require22
ment to detain a person in military custody under
23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
25 taking place within the United States, except to the
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00362 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
363
•S 1867 PCS
1 extent permitted y the Constitution of the United
2 States.

[SunsetDreams]

6. or this: The Defense Bill Passed. So What Does It Do?

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/defense-bill-passed-so-what-does-it-do-ndaa

[bhikkhu]

83. Not a whole lot

where it states (under Title X Detainee Matters): "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." - meaning it makes no changes to presidential authority to detain people, and that it makes no changes to the 2001 AUMF

and: "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." meaning pretty much just what it says. There's really no wiggle room I can see for any other interpretation to survive a court challenge.

[glinda]

124. Unless you can't read.

[JDPriestly]

145. The current law might be argued to permit it.

That's the problem. Which provision matters?

If a court determines that at this time the president has the authority to detain individuals he deems to be Al Qaeda or terrorist (and who knows how a future president might define that), then he can go to court, point to the provision that says that present law is not changed and quite possibly get the court to agree with him.

This is a bad, sloppily written law. It is unclear as to just what power the president has, and, if he has the authority to apprehend and detain people that he, without a showing of probably cause, without review by a civilian court, determines are terrorists then how is "terrorism" really defined.

Every once in a while we see a report of someone planning a terrorist act. How do you really differentiate a criminal act from terrorism? Wasn't terrorism clearly against the law even before the enactment of the Patriot Act and now this?

If the difficulty was that terrorism often involves international networks, that also is not a new problem. Drug trafficking and Mafia activities as well as money laundering, tax evasion and many other crimes involve international networks.

How do you differentiate between violations of law for political purposes that are nonviolent and those that are? Why would you want to?

Who decides whether a person purposely jumping over a fence to protest something is or is not a terrorist?

Those are things that courts should decide, not the president and not the military or our intelligence services. To the extent that existing law grants the president and therefore the military too much authority in domestic legal matters, then it should be changed, but not to affirm or expand the powers of the president and the military.

This law in its contradictions puts protestors and other citizens into a bind. It chills protected speech because under it people who are exercising First Amendment rights can conceivably be detained indefinitely if they seem connected with terrorism. This law and the Patriot Act are just too vague and totally unnecessary as to similar provisions.

Normally, a person is entitled to be told specifically what the charge is against him, to be charged for actual acts, not thoughts or casual conversations. Conspiracies must be proved to have occurred and the accused has the right to a defense.

This law would just ignore those legal requirements, and that is why it should be much more specific and much clearer about the fact that it cannot, under our Constitution, apply to American citizens or residents of the U.S.

The president has the authority to suspend habeas corpus in times of insurrection. We are very far from a state of insurrection. We have protests, but no insurrection.

Terrorists within the US are criminals who can be dealt with within our established legal system. We don't need this sloppily written law. It will just cause us sorrow later on.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Read This piece

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100237510

The requirement to detain does not apply to US citizens, but US citizens can still be detained indefinitely. So if you're not a US citizen, detention is mandatory. Is you're a US citizen, it's not mandatory, but you can still be indefinitely detained.

[SunsetDreams]

11. Like I said, I prefer to look at the actual bill :)

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Yes.....

It references the same bill. There is no REQUIREMENT to detain US citizens. But US citizens can be detained nonetheless.

[SunsetDreams]

15. Where does it specifically say they can be detained?

[SunsetDreams]

23. Still waiting...

[Cali_Democrat]

25. Sorry. didn't see your reply

#19 in this thread answers this. Read up.

[SunsetDreams]

28. Actually it doesn't answer that, Where specifically again, does it state that..

U.S. Citizens can be detained?

[Cali_Democrat]

29. Read the authorization for detention...

The President is authorized according to the NDAA and there's no exemption for US citizens. The only exemption you were referring to is the requirement for detention. Foreign aliens are required to be detained. US citizens can be, but it's not required.

[SunsetDreams]

37. What is the section number?

[Cali_Democrat]

38. Section 1022

[SunsetDreams]

40. Modification of Conditions On Status Of Retired Aircraft Carrier Ex-John F. Kenney?

That's section 1022

SEC. 1022. MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS ON STATUS OF
12 RETIRED AIRCRAFT CARRIER EX-JOHN F.
13 KENNEDY.
14 Section 1011(c)(2) of the John Warner National De-
15 fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law
16 109–364; 120 Stat. 2374) is amended by striking ‘‘shall
17 require’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘may, notwith-
18 standing paragraph (1), demilitarize the vessel in prepara-
19 tion for the transfer.’’.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

[Cali_Democrat]

41. Here

3 SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
4 (a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF
5 WAR.—
6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para7
graph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States
8 shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who
9 is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by
10 the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public
11 Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
12 under the law of war.
13 (2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in
14 paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose de15
tention is authorized under section 1031 who is de16
termined—
17 (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-
18 Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co19
ordination with or pursuant to the direction of
20 al-Qaeda; and
21 (B) to have participated in the course of
22 planning or carrying out an attack or attempted
23 attack against the United States or its coalition
24 partners.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00361 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
362
•S 1867 PCS
1 (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For
2 purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a per3
son under the law of war has the meaning given in
4 section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise
5 described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be
6 made unless consistent with the requirements of sec7
tion 1033.
8 (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The
9 Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the
10 Secretary of State and the Director of National In11
telligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if
12 the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in
13 writing that such a waiver is in the national security
14 interests of the United States.
15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require18
ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.
21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require22
ment to detain a person in military custody under
23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
25 taking place within the United States, except to the
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00362 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
363
•S 1867 PCS
1 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
2 States.

[SunsetDreams]

48. ahhh Sec 1032 not 1022..but it still doesn't say what you support it does

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require18
ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.
21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require22
ment to detain a person in military custody under
23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
25 taking place within the United States, except to the
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00362 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
363
•S 1867 PCS
1 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
2 States.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

Covered persons do not include United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens

(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in
14 paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose de-
15 tention is authorized under section 1031 who is de-
16 termined—
17 (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-
18 Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co-
19 ordination with or pursuant to the direction of
20 al-Qaeda; and
21 (B) to have participated in the course of
22 planning or carrying out an attack or attempted
23 attack against the United States or its coalition
24 partners.

[Cali_Democrat]

50. Yes...I thought I wrote 1032...but I actually wrote 1022

and it does back me up. Other posters on this thread have also pointed out what I pointed out and you have also failed to dispute their posts. The President is authorized and there is no exemption for US citizens. Citizens are only exempted from the requirement of detention.

[SunsetDreams]

52. It doesn't matter what other posters are saying about it...

No one has pointed to where it in fact says that U.S. Citizens can be detained indefinitely. You have made the claim, and I asked for proof. You first tried to give section 1021, then edited it to say 1022. I understand that was a mistake, you then stated 1032. That section does not back up your claim whatsoever. Can you point to yet another section?

[Cali_Democrat]

53. "It doesn't matter what other posters are saying about it"

I suppose it will never sink in and this back and forth is utterly pointless.

Have a nice day.

[SunsetDreams]

55. If you could show me proof it would "sink in",

You started the OP, I was expecting you to be able to back up and support your claim with language in the bill.

[BzaDem]

78. I'm glad other posters are challenging your manifestly incorrect statements.

1021e specifically exempts US citizens from the AUTHORITY to detain in the first place. Read the bill.

[sabrina 1]

85. Where does it say that US citizens CAN NOT be detained indefinitely?

It says there is no mandatory requirement for them, but it does not say they are exempt as far as I can see.

But why are we arguing here in defense of removing the right to Habeas Corpus for any human being?? I am seeing Cheney arguments here, which were debunked over and over again by some of the country's most respected Constitutional Lawyers during the Bush administration.

I am frankly shocked to see the Cheney argument being presented now by the 'left' in defense of codifying what was determined to be a huge threat to this country's Constitution when Bush was president. When did we on the left decide that we do not need to restore the rule of law??

All the rest is irrelevant. And why is this being brought up and included in this bill at this time when we were assured during the 2008 election that all these attacks on our rights by the Bush administration would be dealt with once Democrats were in power and Bush/Cheney were gone??

[Rex]

93. Because they will need that kind

of control if riots break out all around the country, they have to be prepared to hammer down on citizens expressing their rights. Can't have consumers behaving in a way that could hurt the economy.

[dgibby]

128. BINGO!

We have a winner!

Only a few words to add: Jose Padilla and Susan Lindauer.

It HAS happened here, and no doubt, it WILL happen again. Scary times.

[ScottLand]

94. And all of this on the heels of killing bin Laden with no new perceived threat.

[Dustlawyer]

106. Wake up people!!!

Why are both sides passing this "un-American" piece of legislation now, as they are saying when all of the major threats are gone? It is to put protesters in jail where they cannot get out and do it again. They can now stop the major form of dissent, protesting. The proof that the Corps are behind this you need look no further than the bi-partisan way in which it was passed. Why didn't our fearless leader prosecute Bush-Cheney for war crimes, close Guantanamo, and oppose this piece of legislation? Start looking at Congress and Obama through the lens of Corp control of our government and things they do make more sense!

[Dutchmaster]

121. The threat has always been the American people. Patriot act was ready to go long before they . .

. . had the opportunity to ram it through. people who still believe all of these draconian measures have anything to do with terrorism need to wake the eff up.

[struggle4progress]

119. For starters, you might look at Amendments V, VI and VII in the Bill of Rights

and the extensive existing case law resulting from them

[Sheepshank]

126. really...this is your argument?

The law doesn't state that a person cannot crap on their neighbors yard either. So then it must be ok to do that? This is the nonesensical arguement you are trying to put forward?

Gawd luv ya..

The Constitution and DUE process are where a law says it cannot be done

[green917]

115. He's explained it to you several times

It does NOT explicitly say that citizens can be detained indefinitely, however, it does NOT explicitly say that they are excluded from said detention either. It simply states that there is no "requirement" to detain citizens and/or legal aliens as there is with foreign nationals. The bill is, at best, vague and open to interpretation by the current President and any future President we may have (including, God Forbid, 1 named Gingrich, Palin, or Bush).

The other point that should be made over and over again is that, regardless of how this bill deals with American citizens and lawful aliens, it still codifies into law, for the first time in 40 years, the indefinite detention of prisoners that our Government feels may be a threat with NO due process of law whatsoever. There is a finer point of Constitutional Law that President Obama, as a Constitutional scholar, should know better than anyone here does: Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that those rights are only granted to citizens of these United States, the only designation is "people". The freedoms codified therein were meant to extend to anyone (other than slaves and women, of course) who should find themselves on our shores whether they be an American citizen or not.

This bill is an egregious assault on human rights and liberty and will further erode our moral standing in the World at large. Welcome to the United Banana Republic States....hope you don't become one of "los desapartecidos"!

[Sheepshank]

127. Insisting that a law must be written to exclude actions in this instance

is particularly ludicrous.

I would imagine after item number 2075 of what cannot be done, we still would not have reached the limit of things that that should be listed as things that cannot be done.

[justiceischeap]

27. Padilla v. Rumsfeld is your answer SunsetDreams.

It was legal prior (and still is legal) to this bill for US citizens declared "enemy combatants" to be detained. It is up to the President to declare someone an enemy combatant. So let's pretend Newt or Romney get elected in 2012 and the Padilla v. Rumsfeld matter hasn't been cleared up. Let's say that you participate in an OWS demonstration that damages property and the DoD decides that that act was an act of "low-level terrorism" (the DoD considers "violent, illegal protests" to be low-level terrorism--look it up). You have just been declared a terrorist by the US military and Newt or Romney decide to detain you...indefinitely. Guess what? They can and there's nothing you can do about it as long as you've been declared a terrorist.

[Cali_Democrat]

43. Yup

Presidents have already claimed this power.

[BzaDem]

81. Padilla v. Rumsfeld was an appeal from the second circuit.

Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:11 AM - Edit history (1)

The second circuit ruled that the President did not have authority to detain Padilla. The Supreme Court said that the case should never have been heard in the second circuit, and instead should have been heard in the fourth circuit.

The fourth circuit decided that the President did have authority to detain Padilla without a trial. But when Padilla appealed to the Supreme Court, the Bush administration (knowing it was going to lose) withdrew its claim and moved him to the criminal justice system (to give him a trial). So while the precedent apparently is still on the books in the 4th circuit, the next time this happens in the 4th circuit, it will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court (as in Al-Marri) and they will decide the issue. (They will likely reverse, given the votes in Hamdi, where Scalia voted to give US Citizens full due process rights in all cases.)

[justiceischeap]

95. Can you point me to a link where the 4th circuit opinion was vacated in its entirety?

I've yet to find that. As a matter of fact, last I read on the ACLU blog, they were still appealing the 4th circuit decision. Judge Luttig was quite pissed at the Bush Administrations end round on this because basically, the judge ruled that he could be held indefinitely, then the Bush admin decided he could have a civil trial, leaving Judge Luttig's ruling hanging in the wind.

So, point to me where this matter has been vacated.

This blog post is from October 26, 2011.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/padilla-v-rumsfeld

Also, you didn't touch on the entire matter of the DoD and what they now consider low-level terrorism... violent, illegal protests. Much of what OWS is doing could indeed be considered low-level terrorism by the DoD.

[BzaDem]

154. It looks like you are correct.

I was mistaken (and have edited my post to correct that).

The procedural posture in that case was very unusual. When the Bush administration decided that he could have a criminal trial, and Luttig went apeshit on the government, Luttig apparently denied the government's routine motion to vacate the decision in its entirety (to preserve it for Supreme Court review). I had thought that when the Supreme Court denied review in 4/06, it mooted the case and vacated the opinion. However, it appears that on closer reading, the Supreme Court merely found it likely that the issue was moot (rather than made a formal determination that the issue was moot), which left the decision in place.

Interestingly, in the case of Al-Marri (in 2008), there was another pro-government, pro-indefinite-detention decision for someone captured inside the United States. Once again, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court (and the Supreme Court accepted the case this time). Once again, the government attempted to moot the case by moving Al-Marri to the criminal justice system before the Supreme Court could rule. This time though, the Supreme Court made a formal determination that the case was moot and the 4th circuit opinion was vacated.

If the issue ever reaches the Supreme Court, it is almost certain that they will reverse (and find no right to indefinitely detain US citizens). Scalia had an opinion in Hamdi that stated that even a US Citizen captured on a foreign battlefield during a war is entitled to fill criminal due process rights. The 4 liberals would almost certainly join Scalia (and probably Kennedy) in preventing the executive from indefinitely detaining US Citizens captured off a battlefield.

[sabrina 1]

139. If the president has the authority to

order the killing of a US citizen without charges or trial, that is the ultimate indefinite detention. So I guess after Padilla it was decided to just go straight for the death penalty.

Seems like it was a good decision, since it has yet to be challenged. But since you seem to be arguing against indefinite detention, how do you feel about skipping even that process and ordering the death penalty instead?

[BzaDem]

148. There is a difference between overseas vs. US, among other things.

For example, if in World War II, the military were fighting a line of enemy soldiers that contained a US Citizen, they would not need to worry about not killing the US Citizen (unless he affirmatively surrendered).

If al-Awlaki was in the United States, or he surrendered to US authorities, the US could not have killed him.

[sabrina 1]

149. Why would he have surrendered? He wasn't wanted for anything, there were no

charges against him. So killing him anywhere was a violation of all of our laws including International law.

[karynnj]

100. That says the current law needs to be fixed (something I agree with), not that the defense bill made

Feinstein and other Senators fought to insure that there was AT LEAST no change. From the roll calls on the Udall and earlier Feinstein amendments, there is not sufficient support to correct the current law. They might not even have 50 votes - much less the 60 needed.

[tblue]

16. The fact that anyone is not totally outraged

over this is one of the reasons this is even allowed to happen. There should be mass mobilization over a bill this unconstitutional.

Boiling frogs r us?

We gotta bump up our standards. Can we at least go back to the ones we (Dems/Progressives) demanded in the Bush years?

[Major Hogwash]

65. The fact that you think I should be . . .

suggests that you haven't read the bill in it's entirety.

[roguevalley]

73. six one and half a dozen the other. It says the same thing doesn't it. Thanks, Obama. You made Ann

Coulter a very happy beast thing tonight.

[BzaDem]

75. That is false. Section 1021e specifically exempts US citizens, and section 1022b only applies to a

subset of the group that 1021 applies to. You are wrong.

[dotymed]

105. The very real possibility is there

That this can be used against American dissidents. That is most of us. Maybe not tomorrow, but eventually. We DO have a single party system. It should be named "The Money Party." Of course we are still given the illusion of difference and so far, the Democrats seem to be more for average Americans than the repubs. It is in complete horror that I realize that anti-people legislation is passed more easily under a democratic president.
Unles we totally change this entire paradigm, we are all screwed.

GO OWS

[zipplewrath]

8. It's much more complicated than this

All you outlined is where he is not REQUIRED to detain US citizens.

[bhikkhu]

74. and the overall statement of intentions of the section, which would guide a court challenge:

"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."

and:

"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."

...it very clearly is not intended to change existing law (regardless of the possible interpretations of snippets), so any attempt to use it to expand authority would fail in the courts.

[zipplewrath]

97. Not change, but codify court decisions

The effect here, and potentially the intent, is to codify into law, decisions that gave the Bush Administration broad powers. The wording of this law, after the existence and enforcement of court decisions, will result in the understanding by the courts that the congress "agrees" with their judgements.

[karynnj]

101. Those were codified in the "torture" bill that passed in 2006

This bill does not correct a lot of that - though Obama has used the power of the Presidency to rule out forms of torture Bush allowed - something the RIGHT speaks of often as Obama being naive and weakening the country. If you look at the Udall and Feinstein amendments that wanted to go further - you see that we do not have the votes in the Senate and it is obvious that they would not pass the House.

[zipplewrath]

104. The strange part is that this was in there at all

It started out as an attempt to force Obama to detain suspects with the military. Strangely, it had a significant amount of democratic support. Obama fought against being forced to do it. So now, he isn't forced to detain US citizens. It does, however, recognize that he CAN. Obama has always asserted that he could, so I'm not sure why the democratics in congress wanted to force this.

[green917]

117. Would you like to have to adjudicate that defense?

That defense would cost Millions of dollars and take years (possibly more than a decade depending on number of appeals) to adjudicate (while you were being detained under this vague statute that was being argued in court).

The fact that I'm seeing fellow Democrats support such an egregious piece of vague, poorly written, and un-Constitutional piece of legislation just because our guy is in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania saddens me greatly and makes me very afraid for the state of our Democracy.

[bhikkhu]

118. Its not because Obama is in the White House

...its because the real problem is not being addressed, which is the original war authorization. Where the bill says, under Detainee Matters:

"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." and "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." - it should be clear that it is changing nothing, as everything was authorized by congress ten years ago. Challenges so far have been in the Hamdi and Padilla cases, and have been difficult enough.

If this bill goes away and the AUMF stands, nothing has changed. I would like to see a plan and a clear intent to end to the war from every person running for office next year, including Obama.

[green917]

134. I would too but...

What I would like to see more, is for the President to take a principled stand and tell the American people that this law is too vague in its handling of core American ideals like liberty and freedom and then veto the bill on those grounds (like he initially said that he would). It's time for this man to show us what he's really made of...great speeches are nice and make us feel a little better for a while but, we need a leader. Leadership has to come from a position of strength, from having the integrity to stick to your guns when you tell the American people that you're going to do something (like, for instance, veto a piece of un-American and egregious legislation as he said he would with this very bill) because it's the right thing to do. To quote a notorious goofball, "The only things found in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead armadillos." (I don't agree with Kinky Friedman very often but he was spot on with that one!)

[dennis4868]

36. screw that....

at DU we don't go on facts we go on emotions and the narrative we want to believe in...Glenn Greenwald leads the way. FACTS ARE WORTHLESS HERE.

[dixiegrrrrl]

46. Well, it says the "requirement" does not apply

Under the Bill, the President is not "required to detain" but nothing says he "cannot " detain American citizens.

added:
"A last minute compromise amendment adopted in the Senate, whose language was retained in the final bill,
leaves it up to the courts to decide if the president has that power, should a future president try to exercise it. "
says Mother Jones article.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/defense-bill-passed-so-what-does-it-do-ndaa

[DirkGently]

67. Yes, the actual bill says U.S. citizens can be detained by the military.

Last edited Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:08 AM - Edit history (1)

In what way does not REQUIRING U.S. citizens be locked up by the military lessen the problem with the law?

[gratuitous]

3. Oh, just get over it

Gah, you obsessive Constitution readers! If you'd just trim your ideals to fit the new fashion, you'd be so much happier. We intone the magic words "security" and "terror" and it makes it all right. If enough people (or the right people) say someone is very, very bad, then whatever the United States does to them or their relatives or anyone that can be tangentially connected to those very, very bad persons is perfectly legitimate and legal. Just read some of the stellar arguments on allegedly liberal or progressive boards if you don't believe it.

[tblue]

14. +1... Principles schminciples!

Thanks for having some INTEGRITY! Seriously.

[rfranklin]

5. AP: There is an exemption for U.S. citizens.

The AP reported this Wednesday when the House passed the final House-Senate Conference Committee version of the NDAA:

Specifically, the bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. There is an exemption for U.S. citizens.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/16/1046141/-Why-is-the-Media-Lying-About-New-NDAA-Power-for-Indefinite-Military-Detention-of-Americans?via=sidebar

[babylonsister]

10. That doesn't matter! nt

[EFerrari]

30. I can't find any legal expert that agrees with that. nt

[gratuitous]

19. There's an exemption for citizens to the requirement

But there is not exemption for the authorization. And, following the Rule of Unintended Consequences, how many people once they're picked up for indefinite detention can prove to their lawful captors that they're a citizen? If the guy at the cell door pronounces the passport or driver's license or birth certificate a fake, where does the detainee go to appeal that decision and establish his rights?

There's also a school of thought (very unpopular, to be sure) that there are certain unalienable rights enjoyed by every person, regardless of citizenship status, accusation, allegation or even arbitrary say-so. But only wild-eyed radicals believe in that, so it's safe to ignore those yahoos.

[Remember Me]

31. Regardless of citizenship

Absolutely.

Every American ought to be outraged out of their minds by this bill whether the indefinite detention applies to U.S. Citizens or not. Our Constitution is supposed to apply to people whether they are citizens or not. Our Constitution's ideals, as so eloquently stated by gratuitous, ought to apply to everyone whether they are citizens or not, and in fact whether they are here in the U.S. or not.

[green917]

125. Precisely what I said upthread!

It doesn't matter whether or not this bill exempts American citizens or not (and I think that portion of it is vague at best). This is an egregious violation of human rights and we should all be outraged that this was even proposed, much less on the President's desk awaiting his signature (which, apparently, he is now planning on signing even though he threatened a veto). So much for being that "beacon of liberty atop a hill called freedom" that Saint Ronnie talked about...when you fly in the face of the words of a conservative stalwart, you know you've jumped the shark. What is most apparent though, is the fact that we have, in fact, lost the "war on terror". We've allowed the threat of terrorism to change our fundamental way of life which was the terrorists' goal in the first place. This is really depressing and I'm very discouraged about the state of what's left of our Democracy (which is, essentially, in tatters).

[EFerrari]

34. Like so much about this bill, misleading weasel words.

US citizens are not required to be handed over to the military but the bill does not prohibit it. The fake exemption is from the requirement, not from the practice.

[SidDithers]

44. Gag. You obsessive people with your facts...

Facts have no place in this discussion.

Sid

[FedUp_Queer]

77. The Kos piece.

Did you actually read it? The only exemption, according to that, is a prohibition on the requirement, but the piece clearly states the law allows detention of American Citizens or LPRs. To quote:

"Again, the new bill doesn't require the military detention of Americans, but absolutely allows it. This is a language play by lawyers who think they are much smarter than you are..."

[Remember Me]

151. Well, they're clearly right about SOME people

just like ole Abe said:

You can fool some of the people some of the time.... (and it continues: but you can't fool all of the people all of the time).

[rfranklin]

9. It has already been in effect since Bush, so what's the beef?

Whether or not this particular bill authorizes detention of citizens, the Constitution has been considered just a piece of paper for a while now.

[Remember Me]

32. The beef is --

this creates a LAW authorizing it. Now no one subjected to this can object on legal grounds. Very big fucking deal, actually.

[Tx4obama]

88. No it does NOT. The Feinstein amendment language added a line (clause 'e') to Section 1031

that says that nothing in that section changes 'current law'. There is NOTHING in the bill that authorizes indefinite detainment by the Military.

[McCamy Taylor]

22. Obama the candidate was for warrantless wiretaps. Signing the bill is entirely consistent with that.

Only people who did not vote for Obama because of the warrantless wiretap bill are allowed to get all hot and bothered over the end of habeas corpus bill. That means only Socialist Worker's Party members should be complaining. The rest of you---of us elected him. That means we put the signing pen in his hand. It is our fault as much as his.

I give Obama points for being consistent. It shows strength of character, even if some of the things he is consistent on do not please me.

[great white snark]

26. You are acting like a child.

U.S. citizens are exempt.

[Remember Me]

33. There's certainly no universal agreement on that among

people who are Constitutional scholars and who have likely read the bill.

Does your education and preparation for your post match that?

[TheKentuckian]

54. Nor do the authors

It is sitting there in black and white and regardless and without question dictates indefinite detention for non citizens, which is also unconstitutional.

[Remember Me]

58. Yep

Who'd have thought it would all come to this?

Boy, have the terrorists won!

[Skittles]

91. only Americans count!!!!!!

[reggie the dog]

17. habeas corpus

A writ of habeas corpus, also known as the Great Writ, is a summons with the force of a court order; it is addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example) and demands that a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person. If the custodian does not have authority to detain the prisoner, then he must be released from custody. The prisoner, or another person acting on his or her behalf, may petition the court, or a judge, for a writ of habeas corpus. One reason for the writ to be sought by a person other than the prisoner is that the detainee might be held incommunicado. Most civil law jurisdictions provide a similar remedy for those unlawfully detained, but this is not always called "habeas corpus".[2] For example, in some Spanish-speaking nations, the equivalent remedy for unlawful imprisonment is the amparo de libertad ('protection of freedom').

[midnight]

103. Graham cracker wants us to forgo this right.... He prefer we just "shut up"...

Sen. Lindsey Graham on the NDAA, Indefinite Detention of American Citizens

&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realliberalchristianchurch.org%2F2011%2F12%2F16%2Fill-tell-you-who-needs-to-shut-up-sen-lindsey-graham-on-the-ndaa-indefinite&feature=player_embedded

But no member of Congress should tell Americans to "shut up"

[L. Coyote]

147. check post #143 below

[T S Justly]

18. K&R (nt)

[McCamy Taylor]

20. So, Jose Padilla was detained by Eisenhower? Silly me. I thought it was Bush.

[Cali_Democrat]

21. The article mentions that Bush and Obama had already claimed this power

The new NDAA simply writes it into law for good measure.

[EFerrari]

35. Precisely. And that was illegal. Not any more when this bill is signed into law.

Thanks for bringing that up.

[dgibby]

129. Not to mention Susan Lindauer. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

24. It's not difficult to understand ...

why Obama was a failure as a Constitutional lawyer.

[smile....xenu luvs u]

39. Well all I can say is...

thank GOD he's not a racist asshole like Ron Paul

(Dumb fucks.)

[SidDithers]

42. Oh, it's Greenwald...

Sid

[Cali_Democrat]

45. What? No unrec?

I like this new DU3.

My post is really moving up the greatest threads page and not a single person can unrec it

[SidDithers]

49. Glad you can be amused by such a meaningless thing...nt

Sid

[Cali_Democrat]

51. highly dicussed....more recs...

means more eyeballs to see your posts

[SunsetDreams]

56. Totally agree about more eyeballs reading ALL the posts

[Cali_Democrat]

57. I'm glad you agree

[Taverner]

47. This is how it will go down:

No, Obama isn't going to use this bill. He passed it, to gain some form of political currency with the GOP. But he won't use it.

Now, when the GOP takes the helm again, they sure as hell are. And this will, as you can guess, suck.

We will not see the effects of this bill for years to come - years after everyone has forgotten.

Think Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - that took years before it went into effect, widespread.

[JVS]

66. What political currency does this gain. It makes him look horrible to the left. It also makes..

him look horrible to the right and because the right perceives his actions to be "leftist" it makes sure that the rightwing nuts will feel assured that their party is fighting against excessive "statism".

[Taverner]

123. This is about power, not left v right

This is about rewarding the Neocons, who still occupy many offices in DC

[Major Hogwash]

69. Senator Finestein said she is going to write another bill that will clarify her 2 amendments further

So that there will be no confusion as to whether they were referring to American citizens or not.

[TheKentuckian]

136. That is fine and dandy but largely immaterial at this point

because will write is many a long mile from passed and signed into law.

The reality is the amendments that she and Udall already tried got punted so there seems no road to anything substantially corrective and that the whole premise whether citizens are eventually actually successfully excluded (because they aren't as many constitutional experts, lawyers, and indeed the sponsors of the legislation will argue) or not, is still abhorrent, in violation of the very spirit of who we are supposed to be striving to be as a people, and of course not just unconstitutional but actually counter-constitutional.

The fact that all three branches are in on it doesn't change that but it does transform our base law into "gawddamn piece of paper" in all practical effect and in this case, it doesn't much matter since there is no way to even know if there is abuse nor any consequences if abuse or ineptitude were discovered.

The bottom line is we have granted unlimited, unvetted, unverifiable, and unchecked power to the President (all and any) bounded only by their judgment, what those that execute their orders will carry out, and what they believe. Nothing whatsoever checks the power and that makes it violate the basic design of our law and essentially renders all rights and protections null.

I knew we were heading right here and beyond quick when you had a shitload of Democrats on a supposedly fringe website hollaring that if a person not charged with a crime should have surrendered if he wanted justice.

It makes my head swim. I cannot plumb such depths that a requirement for protection under the law is to turn one's self in despite not being charged with anything. Well, once you can go there the jog down the lane to Do whatever you think you gotta do, on your own unquestionable and unchecked discretion-ville.

Even if you place limits, they cannot be enforced. Hell, it would be very difficult to know if they had been crossed and no consequences if they are. This type of law is a cancer on our system of the first magnitude.

[nashville_brook]

59. k and r

[scentopine]

60. They are doing this to shut down protests like occupy wall street. And the right wingers on this

message board are 100% supportive. After all, the bill of rights is as quaint as the Geneva conventions.

Another great democratic leader leaving embarrassing stains for his legacy.

I guess we need more "check in if you support Obama" posts.

Or maybe a few posts showing our leader in a bathing suit.

That should help calm everyone down.

[Tx4obama]

89. Your subject line is FALSE

US citizens in The USA are exempt from indefinite detention by the Military. Please read Sections 1031 and 1032 of the ACTUAL BILL - not what bloggers are posting.

The bill text can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/

[blackspade]

111. No, US citizens in The USA are exempt from indefinite detention requirement.

[green917]

131. Because only US Citizens count were the Constitution is concerned?

Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Amendment VIII:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Show me, in any of the above text (or anywhere else in the Constitution, for that matter) where it says the word "citizen". These inalienable rights were meant to be granted to everyone. That's what freedom means...being free no matter where you happen to matriculate from. All of this BS posturing I'm seeing by you apologists for this piece of awful, poorly written, vague and, by all appearances, un-Constitutional bill is nothing but putting lipstick on a particularly ugly pig. This bill, should the President sign it into law (which I sincerely hope he does not), codifies the eradication of our Bill of Rights into law. It completely eradicates any moral high ground we have ever had in the World at large. In short, we are no better than the Banana Republics we created in Latin America during the '80s. Read up on Pinochet's Chile and you will see what this law could get us to. I wrote a paper in college about "los decapartecidos" (The Disappeared Ones) and I, for one, hope we don't return to that kind of a dark chapter in human history, especially not at the hands of my Government.

[scentopine]

152. Do we enjoy too much freedom? What other civil liberties to you support destroying?

This bill is full of language that is designed to use military as a civilian police force against US citizens for almost any reason deemed to be a "threat" based on any remote connection. Six degrees of Al Queda. I bet every US citizen is connected to a terrorist in within 6 degrees of separation. Even Obama.


Obama sure likes to fuck with torture, wiretapping and prison without trial. He's totally into it. Fixing shit that isn't broken.


" including any person who has committed a belligerent act"

Obama apologists will be busy for a while.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-12-12/pdf/CREC-2011-12-12-pt1-PgH8356-5.pdf

Meahwhile - democratic leadership continues to kiss wall street's ass.

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism
SEC. 1021. 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; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) 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.

SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN ALQAEDA
TERRORISTS.
(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
1021 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

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. <<<< This means military may optionally hold US citizens

--------------------------

ACLU on Obama's non-veto
White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat
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.”

--------------------------

Good for ACLU I will be sending them money. I have more now that I am not spending a fucking dime on any democratic candidates.

This sums Obama's war against civil liberty:

Unquestionably. Take the case of the NSA eavesdropping scandal, the clearest-cut case of criminality during the Bush years. So egregious was the wrongdoing that James Risen and Eric Lichtblau won the Pulitzer Prize for exposing it in the New York Times. Bush officials were caught behaving in the exact way the law criminalized: eavesdropping on Americans’ communications without warrants. And the statute imposed a penalty of five years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine for each offense.

Yet not a single Bush official responsible for those crimes was ever investigated, let alone prosecuted. The nation’s telecom giants, which independently broke laws written specifically to bar telecom–government cooperation in illegal spying, were retroactively immunized for their crimes by an act of Congress.

Nobody paid a price for the NSA scandal, except one person: Thomas Tamm, the mid-level DOJ lawyer who learned of the illegal program and, in an act of conscience, picked up the phone, called Lichtblau, and told him what he had learned. Unlike the criminals themselves, Tamm was investigated, harassed, rendered unemployed, forced to hire a lawyer, and ultimately driven into bankruptcy and serious psychological distress. The only person to suffer from the NSA scandal was the person who blew the whistle on it.

We see this over and over, and it’s what the Obama war on whistleblowers is all about. The only real, cognizable crime—the only one the Obama DOJ displays any real interest in punishing—is committed by those who expose elite criminality, not those who commit it. The attempt to prosecute WikiLeaks is driven by this same mindset.


http://harpers.org/archive/2011/12/hbc-90008356

==================================

[Bolo Boffin]

61. And it is all predicated on the AUMF.

Repeal AUMF and the indefinite detention power is ended.

Oh, St. Greenwald didn't mention that?

[bhikkhu]

70. Exactly. Or leave the AUMF, and the problem remains.

as the NDAA itself says:

"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."

and:

"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."

...while the whole debate about whether the AUMF and the Patriot act allow indefinite detention has been going on since 2001.

[DirkGently]

72. So there is an underlying wrong, & a complementary wrong. Does that make one of them okay?

[bhikkhu]

76. It means the solution is to end the war.

get rid of the bill and nothing changes; end the war and the whole mess that began in 2001 begins to unwind.

[DirkGently]

82. Which war? The War on Terror? The War on Al Quaeda? The War on The Taliban?

If you're implying getting out of Afghanistan would do it, I don't think that's the case.

[bhikkhu]

84. The war(s) the bill directs its attention to -

Specifically naming only the Taliban, who we are at war with, and Al-qaeda. There is no longer any reference to the Global War on Terror, or to Muslim Extremism, or to terrorism in general. Even all the broad statements in the bill circle back to those two groups alone.

...which is at least a little hope. The Taliban may not be defeated, but if we could negotiate a peace with North Korea, faulty as it is, we can find a way to live on the same planet with the Taliban, I think. Terms like education for women, a modernized justice system, and a degree of local autonomy are possible.

Al-qaeda is more difficult, as they don't seem to have any real reason for existence except to promote violence against the West...but you never know. History has plenty of examples of impractical movements either fizzling out, or moving more to the mainstream and becoming parts of the wider civilized world.

[Bolo Boffin]

87. Exactly.

Any hostilities authorized by the AUMF is the war we are talking about. All power to detain is based on the AUMF. No more AUMF, no more power to detain.

[DirkGently]

79. Actually, he's debunked that angle pretty thoroughly.

For that reason, it is very worthwhile to briefly examine — and debunk — the three principal myths being spread by supporters of this bill, and to do so very simply: by citing the relevant provisions of the bill, as well as the relevant passages of the original 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), so that everyone can judge for themselves what this bill actually includes (this is all above and beyond the evidence I assembled in writing about this bill yesterday):

Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention

Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its title says, “Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.” The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as “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

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/

At the very, VERY least, the law expressly endorses Bush's (unconstitutional, reprehensible, oft DU-condemned) interpretation of AUMF.

[Bolo Boffin]

86. Actually, you're wrong about that.

The authority is granted under AUMF according to the bill.

No more AUMF, no more power to indefinitely detain.

1022 may grant power to still hold people who were designated covered persons under AUMF, but the repeal of AUMF would be the end of hostilities, and under the rules of war, indefinite detention would no longer be available as a disposition. The other three would have to apply.

But "Repeal AUMF" is a positive action, something that people can get behind and fight and actually do something about. That doesn't fit Greenwald's agenda to sit frowningly upon all things that inspire his displeasure. Actually standing up and doing something never fits the agenda of the professionally malcontent - they'd have to come up with something else to be disappointed about.

[DirkGently]

99. Greenwald correctly points out the bill endorses & codifies Bush's illegal interpretation. So, no.

[Bolo Boffin]

102. And as I have said, it is all predicated on the AUMF, something Greenwald glosses over.

Repeal AUMF. We have the power to end all of this by demanding an end not to detention policies long used and just now codified, but to the very basis of the authority to do so: the Authorization of Use of Military Force.

Repeal AUMF and it's all gone. There may be prisoner overhang, but there will be no authority to add more and indefinite detention will not be an option since hostilities are over.

But acknowledging definite limits to "indefinite detention" doesn't fit St. Greenwald's purity bromides.

[green917]

132. And what, pray tell, is the chance that the AUMF will be repealed?

There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the AUMF will be repealed because they want the ability to do precisely what this bill says...the required detention of foreign "enemy combatants" and the not-required but not prohibited detention of citizens/legal aliens. In other words, Glenn Greenwald didn't gloss that fact over, he simply didn't include it because it's not a potential solution that is even being debated....why mention the possibility of something that is NEVER going to happen?

[Bolo Boffin]

146. It is a potential solution

Greenwald leaving it out means that he's in it for building pessimism to poison the well, not for doing something positive.

If they had wanted the power, they wouldn't have based it on the AUMF. Get rid of AUMF, get rid of indefinite detention. Are you afraid to even try?

[green917]

157. Your argument is somewhat specious though

If they hadn't wanted the power, they wouldn't have proposed the legislation at all. They, clearly, felt that they needed the power to do this or it would not be being codified into law.

Am I afraid to try to repeal the AUMF? No, I'm not but, sadly, I'm not a US Congressman or Senator. The likelihood that the repeal of the AUMF will even be proposed is next to nil. Therefore, Greenwald not including it as a possibility makes perfect sense because it's not, currently (I'm guessing ever), a possibility.

[Bolo Boffin]

158. They didn't "want" the power, they had the power.

It was undefined and open to crazy BS interpretations and so they welcomed it being codified, and worked with the Senate on the language.

If you're not afraid to try and repeal AUMF, then let's do it. The Iraq war is over. Afghanistan is on the offramp. Osama's dead. What the hell do we need the AUMF for anymore? Repeal it.

ETA: Sorry, I should have read back a little before posting. "want the power" came from me, but I mean they have something they aren't too thrilled with -- in this administration, anyway. President Obama knocked a few dents in the mandate of 1022 and gave himself some waiver room, but it's not anything they want. It's something they have to deal with.

We are disagreeing that they desire to have this power, though. President Obama wants GTMO closed. This is a stain on the United States and if he were dictator, it would already be done.

[Tx4obama]

90. Sorry but the article on that link is rubbish.

They didn't even get the Section numbers of the bill correct.

And the Sections he's referring to are taken out of context due to the fact the Section is not posted in full.

[TiberiusB]

96. quotes aren't by definition out of context

Posting an excerpt doesn't automatically make it out of context. You need to post the additional language that invalidates his position to prove he's deliberately being manipulative.

[Luminous Animal]

120. The section numbers are different because they are taken from the reconciliation

report. That document is what is the final version and what the Senate voted on. The link to the reconciliation report is near the beginning of the article.

[Starry Messenger]

62. k&r

[dreamnightwind]

63. K & R

I fully expect to see this law used against OWS or similar protesters who are just exercising their constitutionally protected rights of speech and assembly. There are insufficient checks against tyrannical use of this power.

Big mistake, and it will be very apparent someday.

Regarding the many posts I've read that claim U.S. citizens are exempted, my reading of this is that the exemption is from the REQUIREMENT of detention, not from the legality of it. So that's not an exemption as it has been argued in this thread, not at all.

Everyone should be writing or calling or emailing the White House before this signing takes place. Outrageous that we even have to do so with a Democratic president, but such is the situation we find ourselves in all too often.

[MjolnirTime]

64. another hitpiece from Greenwald. What's new?

[phleshdef]

68. Greenwald and his typical self-fellating bullshit.

[L. Coyote]

144. Please link your own articles for us.

So we can comment on them too

[fascisthunter]

150. You Say that Because he Challenges the Status Quo

must be difficult having to read the truth.

[DirkGently]

71. The "war on terror" IS the new McCarthyism. Same lie that it's to protect us. Same authoritarianism.

There's just no other way to frame it. We are not in danger of being overrun by terrorist hordes. Government agencies are not handcuffed by the Constitution.

There are no "hostilities" going on within our borders that make it analogous to an active war zone.

I keep hearing that this is not so bad. That it can get so much worse. That's the same as hearing that the middle class is doing fine because we're not, currently, living in mud huts and warming ourselves over burning dung.

This law is rightwing, anti-Constitutional, anti-American, authoritarian police-state policy. It does not, by itself, create a complete police state.

But you can't have a complete police state without laws like this in place.

There is no excuse. It is not okay. This is wrong on all levels.

[FedUp_Queer]

80. And Obama will sign it.

But he's a LIBERAL warmongering dictator.

[TiberiusB]

92. ad hominem cowards ...

...really can't resist the lure of an OP involving Glenn Greenwald, can they? What would a lawyer know about law stuff that any random commenter on a liberal blog can't immediately discredit by merely mentioning his name?

Wait, Glenn Greenwald writes books and goes on television? He disagrees with Obama? He has an annoying habit of providing a lot of substantiating material for his positions? #*&$ him!

You go girls.

[fascisthunter]

112. yup.... any new reader will look at those posts

and see the dishonesty in them. Party before country I guess...

[green917]

133. Well said!

Wish I could recommend your comment! The "Clap Louder" brigade is out in force today!

[99Forever]

98. This is a VERY large problem for me and almost every one I know.

[agentS]

107. If Indefinite detention is a priority for Greenwald

Then he should work hard to get people in office (probably progressives) who will work to repeal the root cause of this law; the AUMF.

Because, as long as we're in a state of 'war' (if they really wanna call it that) worse laws than this one will be coming down the pipes.

[green917]

135. Which is precisely why the President of the United States has the power of the veto

Why is a Democratic President even contemplating signing such an atrocious bill into law? Not to mention the fact that President Obama originally said that he would veto this legislation.

[agentS]

155. Two reasons

1) Fear politics- The bill passed with such a high margin that it would be overrode in the Senate. The Senators are going into an election year and don't want to be hit with 30 second attack ads that make them out to be weak on "protecting America and whatever bullshit" that people fall for. The president is in a similar situation, though he doesn't have the 'fear' angle- he has the 'relevancy' angle.

2) The bill is not as bad as everybody makes it out to be. The military isn't going to be throwing OWS protesters into GITMO because bankers said so and other nonsense.
There was an excellent critique on C&L the other day.
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/confused-about-ndaa-and-detention-provision

I still think the existence of GITMO is the bigger issue.

Though, as slow moving as teh wheels are in the States, it may take a middle class white guy dying in GITMO (or getting the Pyramid) before enough momentum is made to get people angry enough to demand the change.

[blackspade]

108. The indefinite detention provisions have no business...

Being codified into law to begin with.

This was an atrocity under Bush, and is mind-numbingly beyond the pale for a DEMOCRATIC president to sign into law.

This is not about Obama. It is about militarizing law enforcement and creating a codified police state.
We are pretty much over the cliff and this only puts on the afterburners.

[Dutchmaster]

109. ITT: Sycophants saying this is okay because "OUR" guy is doing.

These same people would be losing their minds if Bush signed this. Sad fucking day for the US and for Democratic apologists everywhere.

[okieinpain]

114. i thought this had been settled. why are we still reading made up fairy tales. n/t.

[Romulox]

116. Some older kids made him do it. nt

[Kablooie]

122. America doesn't torture! We just make people disappear.

[Jim_Shorts]

130. Jonathan Turley ... "American citizens can be killed"

C-Span : http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PrivacyIssues4/start/892/stop/1088

Now imagine Newt Gingrich or one of the other right wing nuts with these powers because sooner or later they will have them. We're not in Kansas anymore Toto.

[ooglymoogly]

138. +1...

Exactly...there would be a slaughter of Democrats, especially judges and gay folks, the likes of which has never been seen in this country.

[ooglymoogly]

137. Kr...the last straw...the last coffin nail...

Even the simplest extrapolation leads to the worst kind of fascism.

Can 0 really be this myopic; or is something far more sinister at work here?

[a2liberal]

141. K&R (n/t)

[Zhade]

142. The bill does not require indefinite detention of American citizens, BUT DOES ALLOW IT.

So, anyone out there hearing liars say otherwise to protect Obama, know that this is the reality of the bill.

[scentopine]

153. Exactly - military can and will lock you up, this is a war against dissent and free speech -nt

[L. Coyote]

143. US: A Dangerous Woman - Indefinite Detention at Carswell

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/238886-US-A-Dangerous-Woman-Indefinite-Detention-at-Carswell

US: A Dangerous Woman - Indefinite Detention at Carswell
Susan Lindauer
thepeoplesvoice.org
Tue, 13 Dec 2011

Some things are unforgivable in a democracy. A bill moving through Congress, authorizing the military to imprison American citizens indefinitely, without a trial or hearing, ranks right at the top of that list.

I know - I lived through it on the Patriot Act. When Congress decided to squelch the truth about the CIA's advance warnings about 9/11 and the existence of a comprehensive peace option with Iraq, as the CIA's chief Asset covering Iraq, I became an overnight threat. To protect their cover-up scheme, I got locked in federal prison inside Carswell Air Force Base, while the Justice Department battled to detain me "indefinitely" up to 10 years, without a hearing or guilty plea. Worst yet, they demanded the right to forcibly drug me with Haldol, Ativan and Prozac, in a violent effort to chemically lobotomize the truth about 9/11 and Iraqi Pre-War

................................

[reggie the dog]

156. i am horrified but not shocked