General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama pledges to exempt Americans from indefinite detention law
Source: Raw Story
President Barack Obama signed on New Years Eve a bill that gives the military authority to detain American citizens indefinitely and without criminal charge, breaking with the stroke of a pen one of his many campaign promises, even as he pledged that the new powers the bill grants will not be applied to U.S. citizens.
The provision was just one part of a massive $662 billion defense spending authorization that funds the military, penalizes Irans central bank and freezes military aid to Pakistan, among other things.
The presidents opponents in Congress, including some Democrats, attached the indefinite detention provision to force the administration to either accept a much heavier load of terrorism suspects, many who would be heading to the Guantanamo Bay military prison, or veto the bill and stand accused of opposing funds for the troops.
President Obama issued a veto threat after a provision was added that required all terrorism suspects be automatically rendered into military custody a fundamental change to the criminal justice system that members of the administration warned could stymie other agencies or put investigations at risk.
More at: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/31/obama-pledges-to-exempt-americans-from-indefinite-detention-law/
quinnox
(20,600 posts)It's future presidents, specifically GOP ones, who may want to exercise this power. The ACLU is all over this, thankfully.
And as we all have found out, once the executive branch gets power, the future POTUS will not give it up... no matter party
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)...but the NDAA is still a side-issue to that. The original war authorization extended that power, as did all previous war authorizations. An enemy in war is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which conforms to the Geneva Convention (and so forth...) and does allow for "indefinite detention" of military prisoners, until the end of hostilities.
"The end of hostilities" is the key part, and the end of current wars should be the focus of resolve.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Congress can pass all the legislation it wants, and the President can sign off, but if any of it goes against previous Supreme Court rulings, they'll knock it down the first chance they get. Checks and balances.
The trick is twofold: kick the can long enough to win another term and appoint a few more USSC seats, and get the public to support lawmakers who say hostilities are ended ("Al Qaeda is vanquished! We've won!! etc. etc.) and AUMF is past the sell-by date.
Then get a challenge to the court, when you know you're going to win. AUMF goes bye-bye, "indefinite detention" provisions in all subsequent legislation (which depended on AUMF) crumble, the long national nightmare is over.
All the pieces are lining up for just this -- Osama dead, Iraq troops coming home, no immediate challenge to Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, etc.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)it's too big of a risk to leave that in.
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)authoritarianism and mission in this country as a trend. ... and that's not an Obama bash. Just thinking back over the past few decades a lot has changed.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Promising to exempt US citizens from indefinite detention is meaningless when you can just be killed by a hellfire missile fired from a predator drone.
The war on terror marches on.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Obama has already assassinated a US citizen and his 16 year old son with out trial"
...like an impeachable offense, a war crime even, but I suspect that given the fact that the person in question was a terrorist (not joe blow pick pocket walking down 42nd street), it wouldn't stand. Which is why those using this sensationalist argument, aren't moving to do just that.
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)Its a little difficult in practice to put someone on trial who is essentially waging war against you from a country on the other side of the planet.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)Now he pledges something else, he won't. Doesn't matter, he's not the only or last president of the US, so he's not our only worry, he's just the one that codified the need to worry.
Robb
(39,665 posts)There were three veto threats regarding provisions of the bill. Can you name one of them?
Zhade
(28,702 posts)His pledges aren't worth shit.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Not to mention how wonderful it will be for tourism: Visit the US and disappear!
Think about it. Any tourist with any camera. Buh bye.
"Not to mention how wonderful it will be for tourism: Visit the US and disappear!
Think about it. Any tourist with any camera. Buh bye."
...already did that.
Human Rights Watch, 2003:
The line between war and law enforcement gained importance as the U.S. government extended its military efforts against terrorism outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan. In November, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency used a missile to kill Qaid Salim Sinan al-Harethi, an alleged senior al-Qaeda official, and five companions as they were driving in a remote and lawless area of Yemen controlled by tribal chiefs. Washington accused al-Harethi of masterminding the October 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole which had killed seventeen sailors. Based on the limited information available, Human Rights Watch did not criticize the attack on al-Harethi as an extra-judicial execution because his alleged al-Qaeda role arguably made him a combatant, the government apparently lacked control over the area in question, and there evidently was no reasonable law enforcement alternative. Indeed, eighteen Yemeni soldiers had reportedly been killed in a prior attempt to arrest al-Harethi. However, the U.S. government made no public effort to justify this use of its war powers or to articulate the legal limits to such powers. It is Human Rights Watch's position that even someone who might be classified as an enemy combatant should not be subject to military attack when reasonable law enforcement means are available. The failure to respect this principle would risk creating a huge loophole in due process protections worldwide. It would leave everyone open to being summarily killed anyplace in the world upon the unilateral determination by the United States (or, as the approach is inevitably emulated, by any other government) that he or she is an enemy combatant.
<...>
The appropriate line between war and law enforcement was crossed in the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who the Bush administration claimed had flown from Pakistan to the United States to investigate creating a radiological bomb. The Bush administration arrested him as he arrived in the United States, but instead of charging him with this serious criminal offense and bringing him to trial, it unilaterally declared him an "enemy combatant." That designation, it claimed, permitted it to hold him without access to counsel and without charge or trial until the end of the war against terrorism, which may never come. With no link to a discernible battlefield, that assertion of power, again, threatens to create a giant exception to the most basic criminal justice guarantees. Anyone could be picked up and detained forever as an "enemy combatant" upon the unverified claim of the Bush administration or any other government. As the year ended, the U.S. courts were considering this radical claim.
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k3/introduction.html
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)like he promised.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)We are supposed to be that shining light on the hill.
The beacon of freedom and liberty for the entire world to emulate.
We are supposed to be a nation of laws...one is considered innocent until PROVEN guilty andfound guilty or innocent by a jury of ones peers.
We are allowed to be free on bail. because we are presumed to be INNOCENT first!
Jesus Christ, this nation is slipping ethically, morally, humanely.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)America - "beacon of democracy" - should act. I miss the old days of innocent til PROVEN guilty.
I am ashamed of how low our once great nation has sunk. Land of the lilylivered snivelling cowards....
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Indeed.
RC
(25,592 posts)This bill came from Congress. It is all Congress. Let them take the blame. After all they are the one that put the controversial and unconstitutional provisions in it.
Let them deal with it.
Is Obama tongue tied? Can he not speak in defense of the American people? It appears to be so.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)There is no justification for this. None.
choie
(4,111 posts)why we should believe one of Obama's pledges?
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Autumn
(45,071 posts)what the fuck does he think the next fucking republican president will do?
This is just disgraceful.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)And two bucks might get you a cup of coffee.........
As we have seen pledges mean nothing to Obama.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Confusious
(8,317 posts)According to some around here, we were already exempt.
Is Obama saying we're not exempt? Were the people around here wrong?
emilyg
(22,742 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)future administrations ignoring his personal "reservations" on the NDAA?