Obama Signs Bill to Suspend Due Process for US Citizens

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Obama Signs Defense Bill Despite 'Serious Reservations'

WASHINGTON -- Indefinite military detention of Americans became the law of the land Saturday, as President Barack Obama signed a defense bill that codified that authority, even as he said he would not use it.

The National Defense Authorization Act states how the military is to be funded, but also includes a number of controversial provisions on arresting and holding suspected terrorists, which at first drove Obama to threaten a veto.

He retreated from that threat after Congress added provisions that took the ultimate authority to detain suspects from the military's hands and gave it to the president. Congress also clarified that civilian law enforcement agencies -- such as the FBI -- would still have authority to investigate terrorism and added a provision that asserts nothing in the detention measures changes current law regarding U.S. citizens.

Still, the signing on New Year's Eve as few people were paying attention angered civil liberties advocates, who argue that the law for the first time spells out certain measures that have not actually been tested all the way to the Supreme Court, including the possibility of detaining citizens in military custody without trial for as long as there is a war on terror.

"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 Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"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," Romero added. "The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress or internationally.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/31/obama-defense-bill_n_1177836.html

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

More failures by Obama. He is just like Bush, but killed more Muslims.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

More failures by Obama. He is just like Bush, but killed more Muslims.

More like more failure, in this case by LWN's who are aping earlier fails by RWN's in regards to the provisions of this bill.

You will be allowed to keep your guns, hollar about illegal alien slave labor, continue calls for the FAIR TAX until your fingers get sore, and laud the benefits of your blessed state of Utopia until the cows come home.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

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

[luckytxn 2,264]

Way to go Obama the Socialist. How does it feel to have SIGNED a bill authorizing illegal detentions of American citizens?

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

"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 Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

i have to agree with the aclu on this one.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Way to go Obama the Socialist. How does it feel to have SIGNED a bill authorizing illegal detentions of American citizens?

Still having reading comprehension issues?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

More like more failure, in this case by LWN's who are aping earlier fails by RWN's in regards to the provisions of this bill.

You will be allowed to keep your guns, hollar about illegal alien slave labor, continue calls for the FAIR TAX until your fingers get sore, and laud the benefits of your blessed state of Utopia until the cows come home.

Thats what I said.

He continued the wars on Bush's time schedule, despite saying he would end them sooner, he has extended this invasion of our privacy, extended the Bush tax cuts, which are now the "Obama tax cuts", insisted on the defunding of medicare and Social Security Killed American citizens by remote control without a trial.

we actually have no indication any of our other rights will be respected.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Gary and Alla

[slim 1,528]

Man, I wish I had a dollar for every person getting all fired up over this.

I've tried to exlpain to them, "The military has had the authority to detain you since 1950. This is nothing new. Get over it." If you read through the controversial part of the bill it specifically prohibits this from being used against American citizens. Furthermore, it authorize NO funds for detention of folks at Guantanimo to be detained here. NO transport. NO new facilities. NO new programs. NO dention in the States.

So, if they're not bringing the folks from Guantanimo here.... where are they getting all this new funding to detain Americans?

[웃 910]

Man, I wish I had a dollar for every person getting all fired up over this.

I've tried to exlpain to them, "The military has had the authority to detain you since 1950. This is nothing new. Get over it." If you read through the controversial part of the bill it specifically prohibits this from being used against American citizens. Furthermore, it authorize NO funds for detention of folks at Guantanimo to be detained here. NO transport. NO new facilities. NO new programs. NO dention in the States.

So, if they're not bringing the folks from Guantanimo here.... where are they getting all this new funding to detain Americans?

quote:

In the aftermath of the signing of the NDAA by the traitorous President Obama, some citizens remain completely hoodwinked by the language of the bill, running around the internet screaming that the law "does not apply to American citizens."

This is, naturally, part of the side effect of having such a dumbed-down education system where people can't even parse the English language anymore. If you read the bill and understand what it says, it clearly offers absolutely no protections of U.S. citizens. In fact, it affirms that Americans are subjected to indefinite detainment under "existing authorities."

Let's parse it intelligently, shall we?

(e) AUTHORITIES. -- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

This section "e" is the section that the hoodwinked people on the internet are running around saying "protects American citizens" from the NDAA. But where do they dream up such language? If you read section (e) again, you'll discover it says nothing whatsoever about protecting American citizens from the NDAA. Instead, here's what it really says when parsed into two sentences based on the "or" operator:

• Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing LAW 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.

• Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing 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.

In other words, section (e) only says that it does not alter "existing authorities" relating to the detention of US citizens.

So to answer the question about whether this affects U.S. citizens, you have to understand "existing authorities."

What are those "existing authorities?"

Existing authorities already allow indefinite detainment and the killing of American citizens

As everyone who studies history well knows, the Patriot Act already establishes an "existing authority" that anyone suspected of being involved in terrorist-related activities can be arrested and detained without trial. If you don't believe me, just Google it yourself. This is not a debated issue; it's widely recognized.

Furthermore, President Obama already insists that he has the authority to kill American citizens merely by decree! As Reuters reported on October 5, 2011, a "secret panel" of government officials (who report to the President) can decide to place an American citizen on a "kill list" and then murder that person, without trial, without due process, and without even being arrested. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...)

Importantly, as Reuters reports, "Two principal legal theories were advanced [in support of the kill list authority] -- first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001."

Are you getting this yet? So the authority ALREADY exists for the President to order the killing of an American citizen. All that is required is that they besuspectedof being involved in terrorism in any way, and not a shred of evidence is required by the government to support that. There is no trial, no arraignment, no evidence and not even a hearing. You are simply accused and then disappeared.

Thus, the authority already exists, you see, and the NDAA openly states that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES..."

In other words, the NDAA does nothing to protect American citizens, and it piggy-backs on the Patriot Act as well as Obama's executive "kill list" justifications to essentially place all Americans in the crosshairs of government murderers or military action.

http://www.naturalne...l#ixzz1iKd3g3EF

Edited January 2, 2012 by ☠

[Darnell 8,478]

hoodwinking people on the internet is apparently great sport, aye?

In the meantime - it's business as usual - nothing changed since 1950 (as Slim mentions)

What's the fuss over this one thing? It's a written 'law' codifying the already-in-place practice.

No Big Deal.

I can understand the hue and cry, though, when lumped together with Barry's other 'issues' - somethings foul, amiss.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Detention of American citizens. This was the most controversial section, of the bill, and the most misreported. A Senate compromise amendment to the bill leaves open the question of whether the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks authorizes the president to detain American citizens suspected of terrorism who are captured on American soil. This matter may never be settled, as the risk of getting smacked down by the courts may dissuade presidents with even more expansive views of executive power than Obama from ever trying it.

In his statement, Obama says he wants "to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens." He continues: "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation." Note what the president does not say: that indefinitely detaining an American suspected of terrorism would be unconstitutional or illegal. Obama's signing statement seems to suggest he already believe he has the authority to indefinitely detain Americans—he just never intends to use it. (In the context of hot battlefields the courts have confirmed he does indeed have that power.) Left unsaid, perhaps deliberately, is the distinction that has dominated the debate over the defense bill: the difference between detaining an American captured domestically or abroad. This is why ACLU Director Anthony Romero released a statement shortly after Obama's arguing the authority in the defense bill could "be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield."

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/obama-signs-controversial-defense-bill-new-years-eve

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Did Congress Just Endorse Rendition for Americans?

A defense spending bill that passed both houses of Congress overwhelmingly and is set to be signed by President Barack Obama as early as this week could make it easier for the government to transfer American terrorist suspects to foreign regimes and security forces.

The National Defense Authorization Act (PDF) contains a section that says the president has the power to transfer suspected members and supporters of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or "associated" groups "to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."

That means if the president determines you're a member or supporter of Al Qaeda or "associated forces," he could order you to be handed over to the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Yemenis ("any other foreign country"), any of their respective security forces, or even the United Nations ("any other foreign entity"). (You can read the relevant section of the law in the document viewer at the end of this article; look for the highlighted annotations.)

Many legal experts consider the NDAA a congressional codification of war powers the Bush and Obama administrations have claimed they already possess. David Glazier, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and expert on the law of war, argues that Obama already had the power to transfer suspected Al Qaeda members (even Americans) to foreign custody, and the NDAA simply endorses that view. "If the president could lawfully transfer a German prisoner of war to a foreign country, then in theory he could do the same thing with an American prisoner of war," Glazier explains.

But turning the Bush and Obama administrations' interpretations of their war powers into an actual law is "no small thing," as Benjamin Wittes, a legal expert at the Brookings Institution, explains. Under this law, the government has far-reaching powers to detain and try terrorist suspects inside or outside the civilian justice system—or, if necessary, to transfer them to the custody of foreign powers—and it will serve as a signal to judges. "When you put all that in a statute, it becomes a much more permanent fixture of the US justice system," says Daphne Eviatar, a lawyer with Human Rights First. "It's not necessarily changing the authority the US government has today, but it's institutionalizing it."

Eviatar adds that there are "a whole lot of scenarios" where the government might want to transfer a suspected terrorist—even a US citizen—to foreign custody. For example, the administration might not want to go through the political mess of determining whether to send a suspect to Gitmo, try him in a military commission, or use the civilian system. The administration might also want to avoid the mandatory habeas corpus review that would come if the US held the suspect itself. In such a case, transferring the suspect to a foreign security force might present an appealing option.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/did-congress-just-endorse-rendition-americans

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Three myths about the detention bill

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 partners.” With regard to those “covered individuals,” this is the power vested in the President by the next section, ©:

It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) – to detain them “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” That is the very definition of “indefinite detention,” and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision.

It is true, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) already vests the power of indefinite detention in the President, and post-9/11 deferential courts have largely accepted that view (just as the Bush DOJ argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) allowed them to eavesdrop on Americans without the warrants required by law). That’s why the NDAA can state that nothing is intended to expand the 2001 AUMF while achieving exactly that: because the Executive and judicial interpretation being given to the 20o1 AUMF is already so much broader than its language provides.

But this is the first time this power of indefinite detention is being expressly codified by statute (there’s not a word about detention powers in the 2001 AUMF). Indeed, as the ACLU and HRW both pointed out, it’s the first time such powers are being codified in a statute since the McCarthy era Internal Security Act of 1950, about which I wrote yesterday.

:::

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 most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo. That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/

[Darnell 8,478]

Yo Go, Barry... Double Dutch Points for effusiveness !