Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

Better Believe It

(18,630 posts)
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 01:08 AM Jan 2012

President Obama Signs Bill Permitting Indefinite Military Detention Without Trial Of U.S. Citizens [View all]



Obama Signs Defense Authorization Bill
By Sara Sorcher
December 31, 2011



President Obama signed on Saturday the defense authorization bill, formally ending weeks of heated debate in Congress and intense lobbying by the administration to strip controversial provisions requiring the transfer of some terror suspects to military custody.

"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists," Obama said in a statement accompanying his signature.

The White House had originally threatened to veto the $662 billion bill, considered must-pass legislation, over the language that requires mandatory military custody for suspects linked to al-Qaida or its affiliates, even if they are captured in the U.S. Just before the House and Senate passed the bill comfortably, the White House said it would support the bill’s compromise language that, as tweaked by conference committee, would not impede the administration’s ability to collect intelligence or incapacitate dangerous terrorists.

http://nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/obama-signs-defense-authorization-bill-20111231


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

NEWS RELEASE

ACLU statement on Obama's signing of NDAA
President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 31, 2011


WASHINGTON – President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations. The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill.

“President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” said Romero. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.”

The bill also contains provisions making it difficult to transfer suspects out of military detention, which prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to testify that it could jeopardize criminal investigations. It also restricts the transfers of cleared detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to foreign countries for resettlement or repatriation, making it more difficult to close Guantanamo, as President Obama pledged to do in one of his first acts in office.

http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com/2011/12/aclu-statement-on-obamas-signing-of.html


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

INTER PRESS SERVICE

Defence Act Affirms Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens
By Matthew Cardinale
December 30, 2011



Civil liberties groups and many citizen activists are outraged over language in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) that appears to lay the legal groundwork for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial.

David Gespass, president of the National Lawyers Guild, called it an "enormous attack on the U.S. and our heritage" and a "significant step" towards fascism, in an interview with IPS.

"For a very long time the U.S. has been moving towards what I personally think of as fascist - the integration of monopoly capital with state power, that's combined with an increased repression at home and greater aggression around the world. I don't think we're there yet, but I do see that we're going in that direction," Gespass said. "I think the... act is a significant step in that direction."

Another section (of the NDAA) says "the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States". It does not say military custody is not an option; merely that it is not required.



Read the full article at:

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106339



50 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
And 'Merrily We Roll Along' ... eom Purveyor Jan 2012 #1
Ringing in the New Year. Isn't this just a wonderful start? Better Believe It Jan 2012 #2
I have not seen one coherent answer to this. Bonobo Jan 2012 #3
This has been addressed about a brazillion times. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #4
You're 100% right. Why do the ACLU and other progressives always whine about attacks on our Better Believe It Jan 2012 #7
I couldn't agree more noise Jan 2012 #9
This message was self-deleted by its author doc03 Jan 2012 #5
One persistent yet untrue story, trotted out daily now bhikkhu Jan 2012 #6
There is no end to the war noise Jan 2012 #8
If you believe that, there's not much left to complain about bhikkhu Jan 2012 #27
Are you challenging the ACLU and other civil liberties groups on this matter? Better Believe It Jan 2012 #11
Very clearly, that detention authorization comes from the 2001 AUMF bhikkhu Jan 2012 #28
Better Believe It, you took the words right out of my fingertips....so I'll just add a +1! nt tpsbmam Jan 2012 #29
"my Administration will not authorize indefinite military detention without trial of American..." Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #10
But it's OK to assassinate U.S. Citizens who the government believes might be terrorists? Better Believe It Jan 2012 #12
Shall we examine the evidence of Anwar al-Awlaki being a terrorist together? n/t Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #14
Sure! A trial would be a fine place! WinkyDink Jan 2012 #19
A trial? noise Jan 2012 #22
We can't do a trial here, but we can look at the evidence here. n/t Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #24
I especially like the "top secret" evidence that you and I won't see. Better Believe It Jan 2012 #35
Are you saying that some terrorists should be allowed to attack the US? Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #30
That's yet another personal attack suggesting I support terrorist attacks on the US Better Believe It Jan 2012 #34
"My." The law is the law; he won't be pres. forever. Oh, and about his word........ WinkyDink Jan 2012 #18
Everyone, please take the time to read the ARTICLE on the link below Tx4obama Jan 2012 #13
Yeah, yeah. Parts he doesn't like. Well, maybe JEB will love them. WinkyDink Jan 2012 #16
I think maybe you didn't read the ARTICLE on the link I posted. n/t Tx4obama Jan 2012 #17
Interesting. one_voice Jan 2012 #20
You're welcome :) n/t Tx4obama Jan 2012 #23
I don't need to read the article ibegurpard Jan 2012 #21
I disagree. There is NOT plenty reason to do so ... Tx4obama Jan 2012 #25
Good article n/t tammywammy Jan 2012 #26
NS, S. AS IF he were ever really going to veto it. AS *^^$% IF. WinkyDink Jan 2012 #15
I'm going to try to express my opinion without getting flamed. OK: boxman15 Jan 2012 #31
And if Romney wins in Nov. rusty fender Jan 2012 #39
Yes. boxman15 Jan 2012 #40
In 2008 I didn't see Obama rusty fender Jan 2012 #41
Obama could have issued a veto. Better Believe It Jan 2012 #42
And then Congress would override it (It had 93% support in the Senate and 86% in the House) boxman15 Jan 2012 #44
So what??? Let see where they all stand with a presidential veto! Better Believe It Jan 2012 #50
Hahahahaha!!!!! Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #49
What's the big deal? he can already assassinate U.S citizen without due process. Galle Jan 2012 #32
because it is immoral and undemocratic and unconstitutional fascisthunter Jan 2012 #37
No Question about it: Obama IS a Center-Right President. torotoro Jan 2012 #33
SO Proud of our Country while we become more of a fascist police state fascisthunter Jan 2012 #36
Dangerous times IN America Mr.Liberty Jan 2012 #38
Vetos just aren't what they used to be. But, campaigning politicians never change. Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2012 #43
+1 slay Jan 2012 #45
Please explain in detail what is wrong with this bill. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #46
I'm against indefinite detention of anyone without trial. Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2012 #47
No it doesn't. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #48
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»President Obama Signs Bil...