Indefinite Detention of American Citizens: Coming Soon to Battlefield U.S.A.

[ADoubleDot]

There’s some disturbing rhetoric flying around in the debate over the National Defense Authorization Act, which among other things contains passages that a) officially codify the already-accepted practice of indefinite detention of "terrorist" suspects, and b) transfer the responsibility for such detentions exclusively to the military.

The really galling thing is that this act specifically envisions American citizens falling under the authority of the bill. One of its supporters, the dependably-unlikeable Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, bragged that the law "basically says … for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield" and that people can be jailed without trial, be they "American citizen or not." New Hampshire Republican Kelly Ayotte reiterated that "America is part of the battlefield."

As Glenn Greenwald notes, the key passages here are "substantially supported" and "associated forces." The Obama administration and various courts have already expanded their definition of terrorism to include groups with no connection to 9/11 (i.e. certain belligerents in Yemen and Somalia) and to individuals who are not members of the target terror groups, but merely provided "substantial support."

The definitions, then, are, for the authorities, conveniently fungible. They may use indefinite detention against anyone who "substantially supports" terror against the United States, and it looks an awful lot like they have leeway in defining not only what constitutes "substantial" and "support," but even what "terror" is. Is a terrorist under this law necessarily a member of al-Qaeda or the Taliban? Or is it merely someone who is "engaged in hostilities against the United States"?

Here’s where I think we’re in very dangerous territory. We have two very different but similarly large protest movements going on right now in the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement. What if one of them is linked to a violent act? What if a bomb goes off in a police station in Oakland, or an IRS office in Texas? What if the FBI then linked those acts to Occupy or the Tea Party?

You can see where this is going. When protesters on the left first started flipping out about George Bush’s indefinite detention and rendition policies, most people thought the idea that these practices might someday be used against ordinary Americans was merely an academic concern, something theoretical.

But it’s real now. If these laws are passed, we would be forced to rely upon the discretion of a demonstrably corrupt and consistently idiotic government to not use these awful powers to strike back at legitimate domestic unrest.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...u-s-a-20111209



I swear to god these ****ing neo-cons read 1984 and thought, what a great idea! Why the **** would Obama sign this??

[ShebaPoe]

There is no substantive difference between Bush and Obama. It's not a sports game, a good team and bad team. It's the insiders against us, and they're winning.

[Standtall]

Obama has already targeted and killed US citizens for allegedly "substantially supporting" terror. Why does this surprise you?

[win diesel]

oh noes!

[RazorGuns]

YES WE CAN!!!

[Harry]

Haven't we already had a thread on this? And it was shown that it explicitly states that it doesn't apply to US citizens? FTR, I'm against indefinite detention of anyone without a trial and basic rights.

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 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.
(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) 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.
(f) 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 authorized
to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the
process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement 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 determination 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 subsection (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.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...112s1867es.htm

[FormLetter]

Originally Posted by Harry

Haven't we already had a thread on this? And it was shown that it explicitly states that it doesn't apply to US citizens? FTR, I'm against indefinite detention of anyone without a trial and basic rights.



http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...112s1867es.htm

I don't think the parts you bolded in SEction 1031 were in earlier versions of the bill. Those parts do not increase existing authority of the POTUS or military. We have already seen that the POTUS will order the assassination of an American citizen without arrest or trial. This bill doesn't give him powers above and beyond that. (what else is left?)

The parts you bolded in Section 1032 - yes, they were discussed in another thread already, and I pointed out in that thread what I will repeat here: Those don't exclude US citizens from application of any powers, they only exclude US citizens from the groups of people that are REQUIRED to be detained according those sections of the law. So it doesn't say a US citizen can't be detained, just that they don't have to be.

[Harry]

Originally Posted by FormLetter

I don't think the parts you bolded in SEction 1031 were in earlier versions of the bill. Those parts do not increase existing authority of the POTUS or military. We have already seen that the POTUS will order the assassination of an American citizen without arrest or trial. This bill doesn't give him powers above and beyond that. (what else is left?)

The parts you bolded in Section 1032 - yes, they were discussed in another thread already, and I pointed out in that thread what I will repeat here: Those don't exclude US citizens from application of any powers, they only exclude US citizens from the groups of people that are REQUIRED to be detained according those sections of the law. So it doesn't say a US citizen can't be detained, just that they don't have to be.

Well, the Constitution says a US citizen can't be detained. And that whole section is about REQUIRED actions so it makes sense that this uses the same terminology. No where does it say that US citizens will be detained in this country. If they take up arms in another country against the US, it seems they've made the choice to go to war against the US.

[Standtall]

Originally Posted by Harry

Well, the Constitution says a US citizen can't be detained. And that whole section is about REQUIRED actions so it makes sense that this uses the same terminology. No where does it say that US citizens will be detained in this country. If they take up arms in another country against the US, it seems they've made the choice to go to war against the US.

And if they say things the US government doesn't like while in another country, we will just blow him and his motorcade up.

[RazorGuns]

One bomb from the Occupy camp and watch us citizens get rounded up like crazy after the occupiers are branded a terrorist organization.

And with images of dead americans being carried out of a building - people will be screaming blood for those wackos to be arrested. Kinda like how eveyrone was pro-war back in 2003. Now cuz they're broke - they're anti-war. Go figure.