President Obama Signs Bill Permitting Indefinite Military Detention Without Trial Of U.S. Citizens

[Better Believe It]

Obama Signs Defense Authorization Bill
By Sara Sorcher
December 31, 2011


President Obama signed on Saturday the defense authorization bill, formally ending weeks of heated debate in Congress and intense lobbying by the administration to strip controversial provisions requiring the transfer of some terror suspects to military custody.

"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists," Obama said in a statement accompanying his signature.

The White House had originally threatened to veto the $662 billion bill, considered must-pass legislation, over the language that requires mandatory military custody for suspects linked to al-Qaida or its affiliates, even if they are captured in the U.S. Just before the House and Senate passed the bill comfortably, the White House said it would support the bill’s compromise language that, as tweaked by conference committee, would not impede the administration’s ability to collect intelligence or incapacitate dangerous terrorists.

http://nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/obama-signs-defense-authorization-bill-20111231


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NEWS RELEASE

ACLU statement on Obama's signing of NDAA
President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 31, 2011

WASHINGTON – President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations. The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill.

“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 D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “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. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

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, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” said Romero. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.”

The bill also contains provisions making it difficult to transfer suspects out of military detention, which prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to testify that it could jeopardize criminal investigations. It also restricts the transfers of cleared detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to foreign countries for resettlement or repatriation, making it more difficult to close Guantanamo, as President Obama pledged to do in one of his first acts in office.

http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com/2011/12/aclu-statement-on-obamas-signing-of.html


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTER PRESS SERVICE

Defence Act Affirms Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens
By Matthew Cardinale
December 30, 2011


Civil liberties groups and many citizen activists are outraged over language in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) that appears to lay the legal groundwork for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial.

David Gespass, president of the National Lawyers Guild, called it an "enormous attack on the U.S. and our heritage" and a "significant step" towards fascism, in an interview with IPS.

"For a very long time the U.S. has been moving towards what I personally think of as fascist - the integration of monopoly capital with state power, that's combined with an increased repression at home and greater aggression around the world. I don't think we're there yet, but I do see that we're going in that direction," Gespass said. "I think the... act is a significant step in that direction."

Another section (of the NDAA) says "the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States". It does not say military custody is not an option; merely that it is not required.



Read the full article at:

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106339

[Purveyor]

1. And 'Merrily We Roll Along' ... eom

[Better Believe It]

2. Ringing in the New Year. Isn't this just a wonderful start?

[Bonobo]

3. I have not seen one coherent answer to this.

Some claim that the act does not extend to US citizens and legal residents, but it is clear from the language that the "exemption", as you mention, says only that detention is not "required".

It DOES NOT SAY that it is not allowed.

The claim that this says that it does not shane existing US law is ridiculous of course since if that were true there would be no point in the legislate in the first place.

Furthermore, Obama's signing statements are not binding on future US Presidents, so it is of little comfort and he should NOT have signed.

For me, it is another in a long list of unacceptable actions.

[Major Hogwash]

4. This has been addressed about a brazillion times.

I don't think it is necessary to whine about it.

[Better Believe It]

7. You're 100% right. Why do the ACLU and other progressives always whine about attacks on our

Bill of Rights? They should keep their noses out of the governments efforts to protect us from terriorists and evil doers.

Trust the government to do the right thing and don't interfere.

[noise]

9. I couldn't agree more

Secret panels are the way to go.

[bhikkhu]

6. One persistent yet untrue story, trotted out daily now

Any authority for indefinite detention that there is comes from the original authorization for the war, the "AUMF", which went through congress with little opposition in 2001. To make a long story short, (and to make any legitimate concerns more likely to have some effect), a focus on ending the war is most pertinent, and a focus on who can best further that cause as we go into the election year.

[noise]

8. There is no end to the war

Even after Bin Laden was killed there was no talk of draw down. The latest fearmongering trend is talk of radicalized Americans joining al Qaeda who are familiar with American culture and thus can more easily avoid detection.

A focus on politicians not selling out the country would be the best place to start.

[bhikkhu]

27. If you believe that, there's not much left to complain about

...and what use are civil rights to a population that is resigned to perpetual war?

[Better Believe It]

11. Are you challenging the ACLU and other civil liberties groups on this matter?

You surely can't be claiming that long time civil rights and liberty organizations like the ACLU are spreading "untrue" stories about the bill President Obama just signed.

You aren't doing that .... right?

And if you are, you should send a letter to the ACLU protesting their position against the law.

I'm looking forward to reading your clarification of your comments.

[bhikkhu]

28. Very clearly, that detention authorization comes from the 2001 AUMF

...and concern about civil rights violations related to detentions should best and most productively be directed toward ending the war. NDAA is neither here nor there - it changed nothing when it was signed into law, and it would change nothing if an army of lawyers and protesters had it struck down.

On the other hand - end the war, and you remove both the cause and the authority for military detention.

[tpsbmam]

29. Better Believe It, you took the words right out of my fingertips....so I'll just add a +1! nt

Edited to clarify whose post I was +1'ing!

[Bolo Boffin]

10. "my Administration will not authorize indefinite military detention without trial of American..."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Emphasis mine.

[Better Believe It]

12. But it's OK to assassinate U.S. Citizens who the government believes might be terrorists?

Sure.

How very liberal can one get?

[Bolo Boffin]

14. Shall we examine the evidence of Anwar al-Awlaki being a terrorist together? n/t

[WinkyDink]

19. Sure! A trial would be a fine place!

[noise]

22. A trial?

IMO a secret panel of super patriots acting on secret information makes more sense.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. We can't do a trial here, but we can look at the evidence here. n/t

[Better Believe It]

35. I especially like the "top secret" evidence that you and I won't see.

Just trust the government.

The government always does the right thing and guards our civil liberties and rights.

Now more along folks!

[Major Hogwash]

30. Are you saying that some terrorists should be allowed to attack the US?

If they can prove they are citizens?

That's very odd.

[Better Believe It]

34. That's yet another personal attack suggesting I support terrorist attacks on the US

So you're now on ignore.

[WinkyDink]

18. "My." The law is the law; he won't be pres. forever. Oh, and about his word........

Don't even go there.

[Tx4obama]

13. Everyone, please take the time to read the ARTICLE on the link below

Please take the time to read the FULL ARTICLE here: http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-ndaa-statement

[WinkyDink]

16. Yeah, yeah. Parts he doesn't like. Well, maybe JEB will love them.

[Tx4obama]

17. I think maybe you didn't read the ARTICLE on the link I posted. n/t

[one_voice]

20. Interesting.

thanks!

[Tx4obama]

23. You're welcome :) n/t

[ibegurpard]

21. I don't need to read the article

I've read the bill (law now I guess).
And people who are complaining about it have plenty of reason to do so.

[Tx4obama]

25. I disagree. There is NOT plenty reason to do so ...

And if you had read the article on the link I provided you'd know why I think what I think

Happy New Year to YOU

[tammywammy]

26. Good article n/t

[WinkyDink]

15. NS, S. AS IF he were ever really going to veto it. AS *^^$% IF.

[boxman15]

31. I'm going to try to express my opinion without getting flamed. OK:

On the provision itself:

It's truly atrocious and a disgrace to the Constitution. Whether or not it applies to Americans, the fact that it's even being talked about is bad enough. The language leaves WAY too much wiggle room for a future far-right batshit insane administration to do something like round up Americans and put them away indefinitely with no trial. It's encouraging the Obama administration will not use this provision, but it doesn't change the law itself. The Obama administration and, more importantly, the American people need to make sure that this provision is not in the 2013 NDAA by pressuring Congress (both parties are equally to blame, so tell your socialist cousin and your Tea Party uncle to call and write nonstop).

On President Obama signing it:

He really had no choice here. I know the "Obama is held hostage by Congress!!!" thing is overused, but it's true here. Had Obama not signed it, our troops would not be paid or properly protected for the beginning of the year. This is the defense budget for the entire year. Had he done that, he would be absolutely pounded by the right for not wanting to pay our troops, and would leave the door wide open for a GOP White House in 2012, meaning a conservative Supreme Court that would uphold that provision in case they wanted to use it (It has way more than enough support to override a veto).

It was smart to sign it and issue a signing statement. He's a long-term thinker, and this gives us at least a year to try to get this provision out and prevent a wingnut from using/abusing it.

[rusty fender]

39. And if Romney wins in Nov.

would you still defend Obama for signing it into law?

This whistling past the graveyard attitude is mind-boggling given the fact that the graveyard whistlers base their defense of the reprhensible on a single person rather than on the Constitution and the rule of law.

[boxman15]

40. Yes.

I don't see Romney abusing this first of all, but this is law no matter what right now. We still have at least a year to change it. My bigger problem is with Congress. The freakout over Obama signing it is irrelevant since it would be law with or without his signature.

[rusty fender]

41. In 2008 I didn't see Obama

expanding the drone wars either, but he has. American presidents, if given a chance, will always abuse the power available to them. No one individual can be trusted: that's why we have laws.

[Better Believe It]

42. Obama could have issued a veto.

[boxman15]

44. And then Congress would override it (It had 93% support in the Senate and 86% in the House)

The troops would also go without pay until they do so as well. It would do absolutely no good and make a GOP White House. and thus a judiciary that would go along with this provision, much more likely in 2013.

Obama did the least bad thing here. There were no good options at this point. Now we have 1-5 years to try to get this thing out.

[Better Believe It]

50. So what??? Let see where they all stand with a presidential veto!

The fact that Congress would override Truman's veto of the Taft-Hartley Act didn't stop him from using his veto power to show where he stood.

It's called "taking a stand" in support of the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

A "liberal" Harvard educated constitutional scholar shouldn't have a problem defending the Bill of Rights.

[Major Hogwash]

49. Hahahahaha!!!!!

Yeah, like that would have been the smart thing to do.
Your game is over, bud.

[Galle]

32. What's the big deal? he can already assassinate U.S citizen without due process.

[fascisthunter]

37. because it is immoral and undemocratic and unconstitutional

if you don't see a problem with this, you are part of a bigger problem. There's a reason America didn't allow this shit to happen for a LONG TIME! Maybe you should research as to why.

[torotoro]

33. No Question about it: Obama IS a Center-Right President.

Just yet another example of how Democrats have become Republicans and the new Left is what radical Right was in the 90s.
So sad.

[fascisthunter]

36. SO Proud of our Country while we become more of a fascist police state

congrats idiot den leadership and top... congrats!

[Mr.Liberty]

38. Dangerous times IN America

It is both dangerous and sad to see so many so-called Leftists defend something they would never defend if it were a Bush pushing this through. When will people let go of partisanship? This bill is a clear assault on civil liberties and is ripe for abuse.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Vetos just aren't what they used to be. But, campaigning politicians never change.

[slay]

45. +1

i have no disillusions regarding Obama anymore. this is something i previously would have only expected from Bush and the repubs. Sadly I now expect this kind of betrayal from Obama as well.

[Major Hogwash]

46. Please explain in detail what is wrong with this bill.

And take more than 5 minutes out of your life to do it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. I'm against indefinite detention of anyone without trial.

This bill gives the government the power to detain people indefinitely without trial.

I could repeat the above for over 5 minutes or use other words but that be redundant.

So, you tell me what's "right" about this bill?

[Major Hogwash]

48. No it doesn't.

And we've said that over and over again.