Thread: Legally detaining American citizens indefinitely and without trial

Maybe he saw that Ron Paul is going to be his competition in the next election, so he better start running towards a more constitutional position or he will get his butt kicked.

Originally Posted by Alric

Maybe he saw that Ron Paul is going to be his competition in the next election, so he better start running towards a more constitutional position or he will get his butt kicked.

I don't think he will get his butt kicked. Unfortunately, people are too stupid and not responsible enough to support a libertarian candidate (this is coming from me, a libertarian who very much likes the idea of a Ron Paul presidency.) I'm just trying to be a realist; most likely Paul will be a power broker for the RNC this year, but chances are good for Romney unfortunately. Unless it's a dead heat, and somehow Huntsman comes out on top. He's the only Republican who could "kick his butt."

I really hope this is a pocket veto... (And I agree with ninja; the ACLU has been all over NDAA this year.)

From my standpoint, Ron Paul is the only shot the GOP has at taking the general election. No one is going to support an Obama clone like Romney who can't even hide his other face. If he goes to the general, the base of the GOP will fraction off to third party while the base of the DP will lean closer to Obama in reaction. If a total loser like Gingrich when up to bat against Obama, you'd see a greater fraction from the democrats. If Ron Paul went up to bat against Obama, you'd see the greatest political change since the civil war as the tea party and 99% unite against the Elite's PR machine.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

From my standpoint, Ron Paul is the only shot the GOP has at taking the general election.

Too bad Gary Johnson isn't a serious contender, he could have beaten Obama easily. He out-liberal's Obama on things like war, gay marriage, and marijuana even though he's still an extreme fiscal conservative. Oh well... There's always hope that a libertarian can win!

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

From my standpoint, Ron Paul is the only shot the GOP has at taking the general election. No one is going to support an Obama clone like Romney who can't even hide his other face. If he goes to the general, the base of the GOP will fraction off to third party while the base of the DP will lean closer to Obama in reaction. If a total loser like Gingrich when up to bat against Obama, you'd see a greater fraction from the democrats. If Ron Paul went up to bat against Obama, you'd see the greatest political change since the civil war as the tea party and 99% unite against the Elite's PR machine.

.
I dunno, I think it's gonna be Romney vs Obama. Ron Paul is to honest and intelligent to get a GOP nomination.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

.
I dunno, I think it's gonna be Romney vs Obama. Ron Paul is to honest and intelligent to get a GOP nomination.

I believe he means most likely to beat Obama. Obama will beat Romney, but Ron Paul, as an anti-war candidate, could potentially defeat Obama. (if I'm reading him correctly.)

US President Barack Obama signs controversial NDAA into law

Well, it's officially signed into law. He signed it today, the final day that it was available to be signed.

While everyone else was worrying about the New Year. Happy New Year, everyone!

I'm thinking about emigrating. Seriously.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

US President Barack Obama signs controversial NDAA into law

Well, it's officially signed into law. He signed it today, the final day that it was available to be signed.

While everyone else was worrying about the New Year. Happy New Year, everyone!

Was wondering what was going to happen....
"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists," Obama said.

Um........ why the fuck did he sign it then????
Save his reputation in congress? or....? what?

I'm sure the politician's opinions of him wouldn't matter one bit if he vetoed it.
Coz he'd have the support of over 90% of the American population.

Or do you think it is just a bullshit thing to make his former supporters think that he's still human, but was just forced in to signing this?

Obama signs defense bill 'with reservations' - CNN.com

Two things that I found interesting in this article:

The White House had lifted a veto threat against the bill after legislators made changes in language involving detainees.

In particular, the legislators added language to make clear that nothing in the bill requiring military custody of al Qaeda suspects would interfere with the ability of civilian law enforcement to carry out terrorism investigations and interrogations in the United States.

What does this even mean?

Also:

"I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in a statement Saturday. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

At the end of the day, we're all having to group that in with things like the promise to close Guantanamo Bay, which has proven to us that talk is cheap.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Then why did he leave it, he knows the protectors of the constitution won't let him just sneak it by. The ACLU is ever vigilant with things like this. He knows that if he signs it, the ACLU will notice, release a statement against it, and his numbers will drop again. This isn't something that he can just sign and sweep under the rug.

Well, look who was right, ninderp.

You just don't get it, do you, ninja?

Originally Posted by tommo

Was wondering what was going to happen....
"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists," Obama said.

Um........ why the fuck did he sign it then????
Save his reputation in congress? or....? what?

I'm sure the politician's opinions of him wouldn't matter one bit if he vetoed it.
Coz he'd have the support of over 90% of the American population.

Or do you think it is just a bullshit thing to make his former supporters think that he's still human, but was just forced in to signing this?

That's a very good question.
Maybe what you suggested..(conveniently the bill now doesn't apply to US citizens, the people who will be voting next year, oops, this year)
Maybe because he knew congress was going to overwrite his veto. (But I guess this wouldn't have been the case huh?)
Or he thought the entirety of the bill was too important not to pass.
Or maybe he had made some sort of political deal. (invested too much political capital concerning the health care legislation?)

It seems to be typically Obama to pay the necessary lipservice to some issues, but then don't actually do anything about it. His policy toward Israel & PA for example, his support to the palestinian cause only appears to be rhetoric. Or he says he wants to battle climate change, but then doesn't want to make any commitments during the climate change negotiations. I know he's obviously very much restrained by a conservative congress. I'm still very disappointed.

Originally Posted by Meeps

I know he's obviously very much restrained by a conservative congress. I'm still very disappointed.

Oh no. You can't blame the congress for this one. Obama signed that bill of his own free will.

This bill passed with virtually NO opposition. It wasn't a conservative or liberal bill, it was purely bi-partisan. It would have passed with a Democratic majority, and Obama would have signed it then, too. The Senate is a Democratic majority, and a Republican led the effort against the bill.

When it comes to fucking over our rights, Republicans and Democrats agree. You can't trust them.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

This bill passed with virtually NO opposition. It wasn't a conservative or liberal bill, it was purely bi-partisan. It would have passed with a Democratic majority, and Obama would have signed it then, too. The Senate is a Democratic majority, and a Republican led the effort against the bill.

I do think it's more of a conservative provision.. Well, the bill got more opposition from the Democrats for one. For two, you can't really say, in such a system with little party discipline, that all democrats are liberal and all republicans are conservative. In general, democrats are more liberal than republicans, but there are some republicans that take on more liberal stances than do some democrats. So anyway, the provision entails a tough stance on "the war on terror", which I see has more of a conservative swing to it than a liberal one.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

When it comes to fucking over our rights, Republicans and Democrats agree. You can't trust them.

Well now the provision has changed, right, and it's not applicable to American citizens anymore.. That's dangerous too, singling out a minority.. But I guess that was happening already, ever since the Patriot Act.
And about the not trusting... Never trust a politician But they're necessary to maintain a livable society. And some aren't that bad...

Originally Posted by Meeps

Well now the provision has changed, right, and it's not applicable to American citizens anymore..

I'm still not sure that I see anything that completely validates that. Legal jargon is usually about either being painfully specific, or being exposed to having loopholes exploited by whomever finds the opportunity. So far, I've seen a vague statement about how the military operation cannot interfere with civilian counterterrorism efforts (but absolutely no clarification on what that means. I guess I will have to read the actual amendment, but I hate weeding through that illegible bullshit sometimes ), and a statement from Obama saying that 'his Administration' will not authorize indefinite detention of American civilians. Well Obama's administration my very well be on its way out, and then what are we left with? We are left with a bill with possibly vague terminology, and a shadow of a promise left by an administration that may no longer exist. That could be a huge problem.

Originally Posted by Meeps

Well now the provision has changed, right, and it's not applicable to American citizens anymore..

Bullshit.

Originally Posted by Meeps

And about the not trusting... Never trust a politician But they're necessary to maintain a livable society. And some aren't that bad...

Really?

Originally Posted by Meeps

I do think it's more of a conservative provision.. Well, the bill got more opposition from the Democrats for one. For two, you can't really say, in such a system with little party discipline, that all democrats are liberal and all republicans are conservative. In general, democrats are more liberal than republicans, but there are some republicans that take on more liberal stances than do some democrats. So anyway, the provision entails a tough stance on "the war on terror", which I see has more of a conservative swing to it than a liberal one.


Well now the provision has changed, right, and it's not applicable to American citizens anymore.. That's dangerous too, singling out a minority.. But I guess that was happening already, ever since the Patriot Act.
And about the not trusting... Never trust a politician But they're necessary to maintain a livable society. And some aren't that bad...

No, it still effects American citizens.
"I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in a statement Saturday. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."
His administration. He's not gonna be president forever.

Though I could be wrong, I didn't read what they changed, but it sounds like it still effects American citizens, otherwise it would be redundant for Obama to say that.

And why would you ever give someone the authority to use military force who you don;t trust?

Yea..what happens after HIS administration leaves?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

I'm still not sure that I see anything that completely validates that. Legal jargon is usually about either being painfully specific, or being exposed to having loopholes exploited by whomever finds the opportunity. So far, I've seen a vague statement about how the military operation cannot interfere with civilian counterterrorism efforts (but absolutely no clarification on what that means. I guess I will have to read the actual amendment, but I hate weeding through that illegible bullshit sometimes ), and a statement from Obama saying that 'his Administration' will not authorize indefinite detention of American civilians. Well Obama's administration my very well be on its way out, and then what are we left with? We are left with a bill with possibly vague terminology, and a shadow of a promise left by an administration that may no longer exist. That could be a huge problem.

Here's the damn thing:

Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
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 respon20
sible 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 describedin 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) 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.— (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 au12
thorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such
determinations are to be made. (B) Procedures providing that the require16
ment 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 determina22
tion 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 sub
section (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.

Yes.. Not your everyday relaxing literature, I agree. I put in bolt the relevant paragraph for our discussion. I don't think there's a loophole when it comes to American citizens. When it comes to lawful resident aliens: oh yes absolutely.
I still hate the damn thing but no I don't think it will or can be applied to American citizens, and this is also not surprising to me.. The section is a reaction against terrorism, not a reaction against the occupy movement or whatever. I don't think any politician believes that muslim extremism has any popular ground amongst the American citizens.. I don't see any witchhunt happening against so-called "terrorist-sympathizers" like there was in the 50s against (so-called) soviet-sympathizers.

There's nothing about Obama's administration in the bill and it's that what counts, not his poor choice of words.

Originally Posted by Meeps

Here's the damn thing:

Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
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 respon20
sible 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 describedin 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) 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.— (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 au12
thorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such
determinations are to be made. (B) Procedures providing that the require16
ment 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 determina22
tion 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 sub
section (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.

Yes.. Not your everyday relaxing literature, I agree. I put in bolt the relevant paragraph for our discussion. I don't think there's a loophole when it comes to American citizens. When it comes to lawful resident aliens: oh yes absolutely.
I still hate the damn thing but no I don't think it will or can be applied to American citizens, and this is also not surprising to me.. The section is a reaction against terrorism, not a reaction against the occupy movement or whatever. I don't think any politician believes that muslim extremism has any popular ground amongst the American citizens.. I don't see any witchhunt happening against so-called "terrorist-sympathizers" like there was in the 50s against (so-called) soviet-sympathizers.

There's nothing about Obama's administration in the bill and it's that what counts, not his poor choice of words.

All of that can be circumvented by labeling the American citizen an enemy combatant.

No it can't. Or it would have said: The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States UNLESS ....

"I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in a statement Saturday. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."
His administration. He's not gonna be president forever.

Come to think of it, this could be one of his slick moves It kind of says: "so you better vote my ass back in office, or this bill will screw you over royally!"

As an American, I wholly disagree with even the indefinite detention of "terrorists" who ARE NOT citizens! That is the most Un-American way; that is not how we as a people should present ourselves to the world.

The Constitution says no PERSON shall be held to answer for a crime unless indicted by a Grand Jury. Not even a CITIZEN, but a PERSON. That is a very clear distinction that we need to make. If they truly ARE a terrorist, there would easily be enough evidence to indict them. (Instead we just execute them before indictment, right? Anwar Al-Awlaki anyone?)