McCain's Terror Bill: American citizens will be sent to military prisons

[88E30M50]

I've been reading the text of the bill and section 1032 specifically states that it does not apply to US citizens and that it only applies to foreign nationals that are in this country legally to the extent that the Constitution applies. Now, I am a believer in the phrase 'Live free or die' and have given an oath to defend the Constitution, but I'm starting to struggle with the outrage over this bill. If the bill specifically says that it does not cover US citizens, then how does it end up meaning that the government now has the ability to hold US citizens without due process.

I'm not being argumentative, but am simply trying to figure out what I'm missing that puts our country in jeopardy.

 

[dross]

First they pull this crap and then the next thing you know they'll target one tiny group to pay almost all the taxes while at the same time excusing over half the country from paying any income tax.

 

[rambone]

NDAA is a "victory for Bin Laden"

Generals confront Obama's NDAA, say it's a 'victory for bin Laden'

NDAA would 'expand the battlefield to include United States and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise'

In last moment opposition to the nation's leaders' greatest assault on basic huan rights, the National Defense Authorization bill that President Barack Obama insisted include Americans on U.S. soil for military arrest without charge and indefinite detention, retired military leaders Tuesday resorted to publicly confronting the president in the New York Times in their continued speaking out against provisions in the bill as released Monday night from the congressional conference committee.

"In his inaugural address, President Obama called on us to 'reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.' We agree," stated the retired military leaders in their New York Times piece Tuesday.

"Now, to protect both, he must veto the National Defense Authorization Act that Congress is expected to pass this week."

 

[Cygnus]

Hmmmm. This is why the next election is so important. The next few SJC's appointed will have a huge say in the direction of the country for the next decade or so.

I will bet someone could make a case starting with an amendment citation or 2.

Regarding the bill, I do remember hearing on the radio that Obama asked that the provisions regarding US citzens on American soil be removed. I may have heard wrong or heard bogus info. Of course regardless of whether they have been removed I stand by my above statement.

 

[bingley]

Generals confront Obama's NDAA, say it's a 'victory for bin Laden'

I especially like the conclusion:

Referring to the 60 senators who voted in favor of the bill, what rights defenders say is treason for which each of them should be impeached, Hoar and Krulak stated that "right now, some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism.

"They should remember that American ideals are assets, not liabilities."

All too true. We fight terrorists and bad guys in general to protect the ideals. The ideals make America worth fighting for. They are assets. If/when we discard them because they "put handcuffs on our brave men and women in the service," that's when we become just another asinine empire that oppresses people abroad and at home.

 

[thebishopp]

I especially like the conclusion:



All too true. We fight terrorists and bad guys in general to protect the ideals. The ideals make America worth fighting for. They are assets. If/when we discard them because they "put handcuffs on our brave men and women in the service," that's when we become just another asinine empire that oppresses people abroad and at home.

Unfortunately I think we've been that "asinine empire that oppresses people abroad and at home" for some time now. It's just more people are starting to see it because it is becoming more "at home" and is beginning to affect them more directly.

 

[antsi]

I've been reading the text of the bill and section 1032 specifically states that it does not apply to US citizens and that it only applies to foreign nationals that are in this country legally to the extent that the Constitution applies. Now, I am a believer in the phrase 'Live free or die' and have given an oath to defend the Constitution, but I'm starting to struggle with the outrage over this bill. If the bill specifically says that it does not cover US citizens, then how does it end up meaning that the government now has the ability to hold US citizens without due process.

I'm not being argumentative, but am simply trying to figure out what I'm missing that puts our country in jeopardy.

Be careful. Some sections of the bill apply to different sets of covered persons.
Here's analysis of the bill by Glenn Grenwald:

Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill
This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.
There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad).
But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.
That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody. Here is what it says:

​

The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention

The scariest thing to me about this bill is the language of "the President determines" who is and who isn't a terrorist. There is no politician anywhere in the world who I trust to arbitrarily decide who is a terrorist and who isn't. There is no due process, no oversight - not even any provision for a public record of who has been declared a terrorist or who has been detained for that reason. There is no way to defend yourself against this declaration, and no mechansim for anyone to challenge the president's decisions.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Be careful. Some sections of the bill apply to different sets of covered persons.
Here's analysis of the bill by Glenn Grenwald:


The scariest thing to me about this bill is the language of "the President determines" who is and who isn't a terrorist. There is no politician anywhere in the world who I trust to arbitrarily decide who is a terrorist and who isn't. There is no due process, no oversight - not even any provision for a public record of who has been declared a terrorist or who has been detained for that reason. There is no way to defend yourself against this declaration, and no mechansim for anyone to challenge the president's decisions.

I think this is why so many people are making a big deal about this. Who decides who is an enemy of the State? If the local LEO's here in Evansville are told to come arrest me, what do you think they are going to do? Well, they are going to come arrest me of course.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I think this is why so many people are making a big deal about this. Who decides who is an enemy of the State? If the local LEO's here in Evansville are told to come arrest me, what do you think they are going to do? Well, they are going to come arrest me of course.

According to what I read in the excerpt above, if local LEOs arrest you, the federal government has to make a case against you, not turn you over to the military for detention and trial.

Also, not being a lawyer, it seems to me that when the language in the bill states that ". . . President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” that means that for you to be declared a terrorist, the President must determine that you belong to al-Qaeda or an ASSOCIATED force AND participated in planning or attack. If you aren't any of that, the President has no grounds to declare you so under the statute, and cursory investigation would prove such to military interrogators.

Of course, we would have to hammer on that definition to ensure it doesn't get changed.

 

[rambone]

If/when we discard them because they "put handcuffs on our brave men and women in the service," that's when we become just another asinine empire that oppresses people abroad and at home.

Sens. Graham and McCain have been using that line almost verbatim in the Senate hearings. Our brave komrades at arms need more tools to keep us safe. Support the police, support the troops. Don't tie their hands behind their backs. Give up your rights. blah blah blah

 

[Prometheus]

Be careful. Some sections of the bill apply to different sets of covered persons.
Here's analysis of the bill by Glenn Grenwald:

Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill
This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.
There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad).
But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.
That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody. Here is what it says:

​

The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention

The scariest thing to me about this bill is the language of "the President determines" who is and who isn't a terrorist. There is no politician anywhere in the world who I trust to arbitrarily decide who is a terrorist and who isn't. There is no due process, no oversight - not even any provision for a public record of who has been declared a terrorist or who has been detained for that reason. There is no way to defend yourself against this declaration, and no mechansim for anyone to challenge the president's decisions.

I'd love to see the nay sayers on the first few pages respond to this.... Kirk and friends? <insert chirping crickets sound>

 

[88E30M50]

Be careful. Some sections of the bill apply to different sets of covered persons.
Here's analysis of the bill by Glenn Grenwald:


The scariest thing to me about this bill is the language of "the President determines" who is and who isn't a terrorist. There is no politician anywhere in the world who I trust to arbitrarily decide who is a terrorist and who isn't. There is no due process, no oversight - not even any provision for a public record of who has been declared a terrorist or who has been detained for that reason. There is no way to defend yourself against this declaration, and no mechansim for anyone to challenge the president's decisions.

Thanks, the outrage makes sense in that light. It's amazing how a bit of text can alter a nation if it's allowed to.

 

[dlbrown75]

most people I talk to dont know anything about this bill.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Don't forget that once this bill is passed, it only takes a majority in the Senate to amend any part of it.

Just sayin....

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'd love to see the nay sayers on the first few pages respond to this.... Kirk and friends?

Respond to what? What question can I address?

The overseas provisions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J834KH43YgE

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Is your question, Prom, how this would impact a case like John Walker Lindh?

 

[antsi]

Also, not being a lawyer, it seems to me that when the language in the bill states that ". . . President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” that means that for you to be declared a terrorist, the President must determine that you belong to al-Qaeda or an ASSOCIATED force AND participated in planning or attack. If you aren't any of that, the President has no grounds to declare you so under the statute, and cursory investigation would prove such to military interrogators.

That's precisely my problem with this bill. "The President determines..." - it is totally arbitrary. There is no requirement that he actually prove these allegations, he just has to say so. There's no mechanism for you to defend yourself or challenge this determination. The President says you're a terrorist. Boom, prison camp forever.

People want to jump in and say "This is America, we won't have a Gulag for political prisoners here." Well, maybe. But the only thing standing between us and that, from now on, is the good faith and conscience of the President. You tell me how far you're willing to trust that.

 

[Keith_Indy]

The Defense Bill Passed. So What Does It Do? | Mother Jones

So what exactly does the bill do? It says that the president has to hold a foreign Al Qaeda suspect captured on US soil in military detention—except it leaves enough procedural loopholes that someone like convicted underwear bomber and Nigerian citizen Umar Abdulmutallab could actually go from capture to trial without ever being held by the military. It does not, contrary to what many media outlets have reported, authorize the president to indefinitely detain without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism who is captured in the US. 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. But if a future president does try to assert the authority to detain an American citizen without charge or trial, it won't be based on the authority in this bill. So it's simply not true, as the Guardian wrote yesterday, that the the bill "allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay." When the New York Times editorial page writes that the bill would "strip the F.B.I., federal prosecutors and federal courts of all or most of their power to arrest and prosecute terrorists and hand it off to the military," or that the "legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial," they're simply wrong.

 

[Keith_Indy]

Lawfare › NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the Perplexed

Does the NDAA authorize the indefinite detention of citizens?

No, though it does not foreclose the possibility either. Congress ultimately included language in the NDAA expressly designed to leave this question untouched–that is, governed by pre-existing law, which as we explain below is unsettled on this question.


The confusion associated with the NDAA’s treatment of the citizenship issue is understandable. First, the NDAA’s text relevant to this question changed quite a bit over time. Second, the relationship of the NDAA to pre-existing detention authority is difficult to follow if one does not keep up with this area regularly.

Read the whole thing if you want to understand where things stand...

 

[ATOMonkey]

Oooohhhh.... It doesn't expressly give permission to hold people indefinitely, it just implies it.

Well, that makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

I still don't see why this Law was necessary if it "only applies to non-citizens". Under the Pat Act, law enforcement already had the authority, in coordination with the DOJ, to detain foreigners indefinitely, if they were identified as a threat to national security, aka terrorists.

The only reason to write something like this is to push us closer to a militarized police state.

I'm not buying the propoganda. It stinks.

Also, does this clap-trap come with a sunset like the Pat Act?