NDAA..... let's do this

Being · 01-19-2012, 08:22 PM

The reason I am starting this is because up until now, I haven't had the time to do my due research on this (moving across country sucks) and have heard some interesting viewpoints. The thought that got me really motivated to do my research - I don't think anyone else is. They are told what it is and accept it. If I am wrong - please correct WITH FACTS. Thanks.

Ok. Let me say this very clearly so no one acts like an idiot.

I DO NOT ENDORSE THE FACT THIS IS LAW. I AM SIMPLY STARTING A DISCUSSION. BE CIVIL.
Now, can we stop generalizing here? It's the NDAA of 2012, the NDAA is passed every year.

Quote:

The National Defense Authorization Act is a United States federal law that has been enacted for each of the past 49 years to specify the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense.[1]

Ok, so obviously everyone is against it, so I will start the thread off with some devil's advocate stuff that will get everyone riled up and excited.

First off:

Quote:

An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected by the Senate.[19]

and who is in charge of congress right now? GOP......(I understand Obama signed it, but GOP had a chance to make it an incredible law rather than a terrible one, they both fucked up)
Second:

Quote:

"without trial, until the end of the hostilities

Quote:

The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

Quote:

in sub-section 1021(d), also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force."

Quote:

in sub-section(e), 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."

Ok, what i'm trying to get at here; habeas corpus. From my understanding the NDAA does not eliminate habeas corpus, it basically delays it. You won't have a fair and speedy trial (yes, this is a big problem as well), but you will have a right to go to trial to overturn it.
habeas corpus (trying to make it easy):

Quote:

prisoner can be released from unlawful detention, that is, detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence

and, final note - sorry if this post is a little unorganized, i've been piecing it together all day when i have time

kamikazi89 · 01-20-2012, 07:11 AM

The GOP is only "in charge" of the House, the Dems are in control of the senate, and indeed thwarted efforts by members of both parties to explicitly exempt US citizens from the indefinte detentions provisions contained in the final bill

i have the bill in front of me and there is no provision for a person who has been detained to seek relief in a court of law..indeed the quotes you pasted are options the administration may peruse, under certain conditions, and nothing to do with the rights of the indefinitely detained..

also, if you go to sec 1022 it doesn't require the executive branch to detain US citizens by the military, but it certainly doesn't prohibit them from so doing..and as i understand it the Administration already believes that power exists

Being · 01-20-2012, 08:37 AM

Quote:

(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.

Quote:

(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.

just found this and love it:

Quote:

(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 organiza- tions, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

also, some nice checks and balances here:

Quote:

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

Quote:

(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.

kamikazi89 · 01-20-2012, 09:52 AM

by not requiring the Executive branch to detain citizens only leaves it up to Its(the executive branch) discretion, otherwise why not support the Udall amendment which would have explicitly denied the executive branch from detaining citizens

reporting to congress isn't what i would call judicial review, i hope you're not trying to claim it is

Cerpin Taxt · 01-20-2012, 11:30 AM

Play them out, Cenk...

NDAA & Obama: Defenders Are Wrong - Here's Why - YouTube

kamikazi89 · 01-20-2012, 11:30 AM

Daily Kos: Politicususa.com Shills for Obama on Whether NDAA Military Detention Applies to American Citizens.

Quote:

Politicususa.com Shills for Obama on Whether NDAA Military Detention Applies to American Citizens.

by Ralph Lopez

Title and lead line: "Obama Signing Statement: The NDAA Doesn’t Apply To US Citizens":

In his signing statement attached to the NDAA, President Obama made it clear that the language about detentions does not apply to US citizens.

The website: Politicususa.com, "Real Liberal Politics. No Corporate Money. No Masters."

The part about no masters will have to be changed because, previously a fairly reputable news source in that its biases are clearly stated and up-front, this report sadly undermines any credibility it may ever have had.

Too bad. I had no problem citing them as a source before now.

The report showcases the now debunked NDAA signing statement by Obama, as the article comments clearly show that even the readers are better informed than the website. The key signing statement language:

Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “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.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force.) Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.

But the ACLU said:

“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...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..."

Why would the ACLU take a directly contrary position to Politicususa.com? I have pointed out many times before, people may think that "existing law" is the Bill of Rights. But it is not. Existing law is in flux, and right now it is Jose Padilla, who Fourth Circuit affirmed could be held indefinitely by the military without charge or trial. Sen. Lindsey Graham made this abundantly clear on the Senate floor during debate:

Are you familiar with the Padilla case? That is a Federal court case involving an American citizen captured in the United States who was held for several years as an enemy combatant...The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said: An American citizen can be held by our military as an enemy combatant, even if they are caught in the United States... the law of the land is that an American citizen can be held as an enemy combatant. That went to the Fourth Circuit. That, as I speak, is the law of the land.

As well, (as I have also said before,) if the law does not allow "the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," why would Obama need to promise that his administration will not "authorize" what he is not allowed to do in the first place? That's a bit of a slip for someone as clever as Obama, and a smoking gun.

It is surprising that Politicususa.com does not invoke the other red herring, the language in Section 1022: "(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."

For the millionth time, even if military custody is not "required," it is still "allowed," by the plain meaning of the text in Section 1021 (page 265 of final bill), in substance:

"Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force ...to detain...A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda...or associated forces...including any person who has...directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces...The disposition of a person...may include...Detention under the law of war...without trial until the end of the hostilities..."

Who makes the determination, with no evidence, or showing of probable cause required, without right to counsel, or any contact with family or friends allowed, that you have "substantially supported...associat ed forces?" The same government which said it was "100% certain" that Brandon Mayfield's fingerprints were a match in the Madrid train bombing, until the Spanish authorities went public with the FBI error after telling the FBI privately, repeatedly, that they had the wrong guy in Mayfield. Mayfield would be rotting in prison this very moment were it not for the Spanish government.

Politicususa.com does, however, use the discredited but still often used analysis quoted in Lawfareblog.com:

“We would also note that, under a plain-language reading, section 1022 would not even cover persons apprehended in the U.S. by the FBI or other law-enforcement officials: That provision applies only to a person “who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF”—and in the case of a domestic FBI or other law-enforcement arrest, presumably neither the arresting entity nor the individual would be engaged in “hostilities authorized by the AUMF.” On this reading—which is fortified by the language clarifying that 1022 does not affect FBI authorities—the statute could only apply in the first instance to someone captured by a U.S. agency acting pursuant to the AUMF, which in effect would mean apprehensions by the armed forces overseas.”

But real "clarifying language" would say simply: "Nothing in this bill shall be construed to abridge the Sixth Amendment rights of U.S. citizens, under any circumstances." Lawfareblog.com's "clarifying language" is about as clear as mud.

Jose Padilla was arrested on American soil, by the FBI, then turned over to the military on the demand of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Remember Padilla is the one who was originally supposed to be plotting to blow up a "dirty bomb" in NYC, which then changed to using gas lines to blow up apartment buildings, neither allegation of which ever made it into the charges when he was finally released to civilian trial 4 years later, to avoid Supreme Court review of his indefinite military detention.

A vegetable by the time of his trial whose "temperament," his attorney said, "was so docile and inactive that his behavior was like that of ‘a piece of furniture," Padilla was convicted on the basis of a "CIA agent" who was allowed to remain nameless and testify in disguise including, wig, sunglasses, and facial hair, and a purported "Al Qaeda application form" complete with a line for "Emergency Contact."

In addition the very grounds relied on by the Fourth Circuit was the AUMF, citing World war II precedent in Ex Parte Quinn. So when Lawfareblog says "presumably neither the arresting entity nor the individual would be engaged in “hostilities authorized by the AUMF,"" it presumes wrong.

Lawfareblog says that the NDAA would "in effect would mean apprehensions by the armed forces overseas." But Jose Padilla showed that the whole world was now the battlefield.

So I guess it is no surprise that Politicususa.com never reported that is was a fellow Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin, Chairman of the Armed Service Committee, who charged that is was Obama who asked him to include military detention of Americans in the first place, which was not originally in the Senate bill S. 1867 or the House bill which preceded. Levin says that Americans were firmly excluded from either a requirement or an allowance that they be held in military custody by the language of the original bills, but the Obama administration asked him to remove that:

Sen. Levin (addressing Senate president):
Is the senator familiar with the fact that it was the administration which asked us to remove the very language we had in the bill which passed the committee and that we removed it at the request of the administration... that would have said that this determination would not apply to US citizens and lawful residents? I'm just wondering is the senator familiar with the fact it was the administration which asked us to remove the very language [excluding US citizens], the absence of which, is now objected to by the senator from Illinois?"

Thus RIP, credibility of PoliticusUSA.com. I used to like you. You are now complicit in this treasonous deception of the American people.

Jose Padilla, Navy Brig

kamikazi89 · 01-20-2012, 01:26 PM

i just made a donation

Quote:

Dear Ronald,

Thank you so much for your generous gift to the ACLU.

We're facing some of our biggest and most challenging legal battles — and we're being called on at every turn to defend the rights and liberties that we cherish. Your support helps ensure that we have the resources we need to prevail.

We couldn't have won a single landmark victory in our 90-year history without dedicated supporters like you on our side. I'm proud to have you standing with us.

With gratitude,

Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004-2400
http://www.aclu.org/

P.S. You can get even more involved when you join our vibrant Facebook community and follow the ACLU on Twitter.

Please print or save this message for your personal records.

The Rev · 01-20-2012, 02:10 PM

Ronald? I always thought your name was "Ninja" or something.

The Rev

stoneric · 01-20-2012, 02:16 PM

How about we go under the premise that every human being deserves a trial and there would be no need to discuss these bullshit laws?

Flamingnun · 01-20-2012, 03:37 PM

Yeah, good luck pitching a federal law to an international audience.

Being · 01-20-2012, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamikazi89

reporting to congress isn't what i would call judicial review, i hope you're not trying to claim it is

no, not at all, just not as bad as some fear mongers want us to believe . I'm just trying to bring up points to start the discussion. I'm sorry, not watching any videos - I don't trust videos, I trust text. Videos are almost always sensationalist anyways.

Quote:

How about we go under the premise that every human being deserves a trial and there would be no need to discuss these bullshit laws?

would be sweet - good luck on that lol

Quote:

For the millionth time, even if military custody is not "required," it is still "allowed," by the plain meaning of the text in Section 1021 (page 265 of final bill), in substance:

this I understand and forgot to clarify myself on. Now, I am not saying that this new provision is an ok thing. What I am trying to point out is that there are some parts of this aren't as bad as some fear mongers and den haters want you to believe. Also, The more devils advocate I play, the more responses and info I will get, and i firmly believe human interaction and debate is the best way to learn.

01-20-2012, 02:10 PM	#8 (permalink)
The Rev Clear Light Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: In my head, somewhere. Posts: 17,867 Thanks: 5,019 Thanked 5,421 Times in 2,865 Posts	Ronald? I always thought your name was "Ninja" or something. The Rev __________________ Budforce - My Friend August 29, 1973- May 25, 2012

01-20-2012, 03:37 PM	#10 (permalink)
Flamingnun Shpadoinkle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: roflmao Posts: 17,491 Thanks: 1,046 Thanked 2,633 Times in 1,185 Posts	Yeah, good luck pitching a federal law to an international audience. __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

01-20-2012, 02:16 PM	#9 (permalink)
stoneric bougeman Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 5,646 Thanks: 704 Thanked 1,512 Times in 1,067 Posts	How about we go under the premise that every human being deserves a trial and there would be no need to discuss these bullshit laws?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)