"NDAA does a lot of things, but the one thing it doesn't do is authorize the detention of Americans"

[Tx4obama]

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.

SNIP

Yes, Obama signed the NDAA. Even if he would have vetoed it, an override would have been likely. His veto would have been nothing more than an empty symbolic gesture that would have caused more problems than it solved.

The NDAA does a lot of things, but the one thing it does not do is authorize the detention of American citizens. As we head into to 2012, can we finally put this bogus piece of misinformation to bed?

Please take the time to read the FULL article here: http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-ndaa-statement
p.s. It's a really 'good read'

[gateley]

1. Not good enough! Off with his head!

There are a lot of provisions in the bill that were valid and needed, too. I don't know why some people ONLY see what they don't like, can't acknowledge any of the good.

[FedUp_Queer]

7. Astonishing.

We have a bill which declares the United States a battlefield and purports to allow the government to detain people (does it matter if they are citizens or not?) for committing supposed crimes indefinitely, without CHARGE or trial or the ability to challenge their detention. There are certain things that poison the whole thing. Look up fruit of the poisonous tree, for example.

[gateley]

8. Yep. Astonishing. nt

[mazzarro]

28. Seems to me like you are arguing both sides of the issue?

Does the bill warrant condemnation or not? Or do you just see only the good aspects of it as you mentioned in your first response?

I think this is a bad bill and that whether or not a veto is overridden should not be the most important judgment Obama should have made in this case - but principle should have been paramount instead. Obama has hardly seen any liberal/progressive principle as important so far in his administration.

[gateley]

51. I don't think anything is all good or all bad in politics. I'm thankful for the good we get,

disappointed at what we don't get, and hopeful that we will keep moving in the right direction, piece by piece.

[teddy51]

2. Well he may have said that, and Feinstien's bill may say that, but how will a

court ie: The Supreme court interpret it? Especially if we happen to have a Republican President.

[TheDizzzle]

5. re: teddy51

Feinstein's amendment to the bill was rejected.

[Tx4obama]

9. There were THREE Feinstein amendments, the 3rd one passed before the NDAA bill did n/t

[freshwest]

47. Correct.

[napoleon_in_rags]

3. Good stuff. Read the article linked to in the article as well:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/setting-the-record-straight-the-changed-language-in-the-ndaa

The National Defense Authorization Act has come under fire by the libertarians and the progressives. It was under this pressure that the language has been changed in regards to the detention sections 1031 and 1032.

Yay! So we know longer have to wonder if missing persons posters were taken by the military, the people were heard!

I think the signing statement from Obama was a good addition too, just to make it extra clear. Wow government listening to the people...how exciting is that?

[stockholmer]

15. "Wow government listening to the people...how exciting is that?" <--- ROFLMAO

[SixthSense]

50. you don't need to 'detain' someone

to drop a missile on them with a drone

Anwar Al-Awlaki was never detained. Assassinated on no charges, no trial, and secret evidence anyway - along with his 16-year-old son, also a US citizen, who was 'collateral damage' in the strike.

Nothing in that changed language prohibits a drone strike on a US citizen - even on US territory! - with no due process whatsoever. Precedents for US military involved in domestic law enforcement have already been set, by the way.

[roseBudd]

4. It amazes me sometimes, shouldn't the legislative branch receive the ire? I mean I blame...

the 106th congress Senate for Gramm-Leach-Bliley

[FedUp_Queer]

6. Exactly.

It's not as if the president "signs" bills into law or could prevent them from becoming laws from anything like a "veto."

[roseBudd]

16. It is an appropriations bill, there is no line item veto.

[ddickey]

22. True, but ...

There's no line item veto, that's true; but he could have vetoed the entire bill. Leadership entails making tough decisions. The concern here is the wording is too vague. I mean, how is terrorist defined? Read any textbook on the matter and you'll see that no two government agencies employ the same definition. "Terrorist organization" is defined so broadly that any person or institution that says or does anything remotely subversive or controversial could be labeled a terrorist or any organization a terrorist organization.

[TheWraith]

25. No, he could NOT have vetoed the bill.

The bill passed the Senate with 93 votes, which is 26 votes more than you need to override a veto.

It amazes me how many people hold strong opinions on what should and shouldn't be done without actually knowing whether it's possible.

[ddickey]

27. He could have, he should have

Obama could have vetoed it. It then would have to go to both houses for a vote. They probably would have voted to override the veto. If that was the case, the bill would have passed without having been signed by the President. This would have been a strong protest on behalf of the President. But he signed the bill, and he did it because he supported it--despite his "reservations."

[roseBudd]

30. They believe in magic POTUS

This is an appropriations bill with a lot of things in it, like most appropriation bills.

Apparently appropriating is important stuff.

The signing statement, explains some of the important stuff

I wonder how many have read the signing statement in full

http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/12/31/obama-defense-bill-signing-statement/

I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded....

read more

[Downtown Hound]

43. So what?

He could have still vetoed, and congress could have overrode it, but if they had at least it would have all been on their heads and not his. And for once Obama could actually look the people in the eye and tell them he actually took a righteous stand on something instead of just doing what was politically expedient. Obama has supported the Patriot Act, (oh, but he had reservations about that too, lol) and now this.

Face it, on civil liberties, Obama totally sucks ass. He's every bit as bad as Bush.

[FedUp_Queer]

71. Cowardice, plain and simple.

Actually he absolutely could have and should have vetoed the bill. If he had done so, then he takes to the bully pulpit, much like he did with the tax extension. He brow beats the SOBs into sustaining his veto. It begs the question: what DOES this man stand for? Are there ANY principles for which he will sacrifice anything? The notion that anyone can tell the future like this is appalling, absurd and disgusting. As a person who has worked on Capitol Hill and seen it from the inside, I know the power of the bully pulpit of a president WHO ACTUALLY USES THIS POWER. This really begs the question: does a "democrat" have any principles? Really...anything for which a person risks it all? Is there anything that's not negotiable? Is there anything that amounts to a single yeast that spoils the entire dough? If there's not, then there are no principles.

[JDPriestly]

76. Obama's veto might not have stopped the enactment of the bill, but there is a chance it would have

caused some Democrats to reconsider their votes. And at the very least, the law would have passed without Obama's agreement.

Face it. The Republicans intimidated Obama into signing this bad bill. If he hadn't signed it, they would have used the fact that he didn't sign it against him by claiming that he didn't sign it because he was weak on defense.

Obama could have turned the tables on them, but he doesn't do it because he doesn't have the personal and moral strength to face down the press and his critics. Too bad.

[FedUp_Queer]

80. You are so right.

Let's not forget the following:

45 Democrats voted in favor in the Senate
40 Republicans voted in favor in the Senate
1 Independent voted in favor in the Senate

6 Democrats voted against the Senate
6 Republicans voted against in the Senate
1 Independent voted against in the Senate

1 Republican did not vote in the Senate

190 Republicans voted in favor in the House
93 Democrats voted in favor in the House

43 Republicans voted against in the House
93 Democrats voted against in the House

8 Republicans did not vote
6 Democrats did not vote

In order to override the veto, they would have needed 291 in the House (which they didn't have) and 67 in the Senate (which they did have).

The notion that he "COULDN'T" have vetoed it is nonsense. His veto would have given Democrats cover in the House to vote against override. In addition, it is VERY unlikely the Democrats would have voted to override the President of their party in an election year.

Plain and simple, you are dead on about his lack of "personal and moral strength."

Finally, for all those continue to insist it doesn't give him the power to detain, I guess all of these groups are also wrong:

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/trust-me-is-not-enough-of-a-safeguard-says-amnesty-international-as-president-obama-signs-the-ndaa-i

[JDPriestly]

82. Had he vetoed the bill, most likely, the Democrats in the Senate would have prevailed

on an amendment clarifying the role of the military, of the president and of the courts.

It is really murky as it is.

Interpreting the language in the bill including portions regarding the role of the National Guard which is now virtually under the control of the military in the most draconian way, it could be legalese for a military coup.

Interpreting the language to be innocuous, it is vague and unnecessary.

Obama should have sent it back for clarification. We are in no-mans-land at this time.

[FedUp_Queer]

83. Surreal.

That last 12 years has been surreal. Whether it's the December 12, 2000 coup d'etat; our torturing people; operating "dark site prisons" around the world; our government asserting its complete immunity from lawsuit from its citizens it illegally wiretaps; the Bush doctrine which lead to the same violations of the crimes of aggression WE condemned at Nuremberg; warrantless and random searches of peoples' belongings on the subway; a completely militarized "civilian" police force; such widespread torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity (Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Bagram, etc.), I keep thinking I'm going to wake up and it's going to be over. I have been constantly asking myself if things really are different (I suspect this country's capitalist masters have been orchestrating this stuff for decades) or if I've just noticed. Either way, I have a "WTF moment" nearly every day. Am I alone? I mean...at what point do we get so angry that they feel COMPELLED to take to the streets...that we just can't help it?

[JDPriestly]

84. You are not alone.

[cheapdate]

26. He could have vetoed the bill

but I don't believe there would have been nearly enough political or popular support for a veto. The ensuing political chaos may have led to unintended consequences, such as significantly empowering the right-wing, and ultimately moving the country in the OPPOSITE direction. I'm not sure that the time was right for vetoing the defense authorization bill, as deplorable as it was.

[Downtown Hound]

45. Uh huh. Now is not the time for gay rights. Now is not the time to question our president

on the eve of war, we need to support our troops! Now's not the time for a public health care option. I've heard all this crap before. And apparently, now is not the time to stand up for basic human rights.

Is there ever a good time? And when might that be?

[JDPriestly]

77. A person of truly good character does what is right and if he does it with strength and conviction,

and if it is the right thing to do, others will support what he is doing.

What is better? To do the wrong thing and avoid the disapproval of others, or to do the right thing and have to deal with the disapproval of others.

Obama's signing statement is ambiguous as is the bill. And of course, the basic ambiguity is due to the failure to properly define what is and is not "terrorism." Maybe that word cannot be defined so as to use it as a definition of a crime or of wrongful conduct.

[FedUp_Queer]

70. Non-sequiter

The line-item veto is unconstitutional, period. It doesn't matter if it's an appropriations bill. There are, however, certain things that SHOULD poison the whole thing...you know principles which are non-negotiable. I guess that's just "silly thinkin'."

[freshwest]

49. It's easier to blame one person instead of 535. Besides, they like some of those jobs.

[lamp_shade]

10. Those who didn't read and understand the President's signing statement will also refuse to

read the article at your link. I read both thoroughly. The President made a good and well-calculated decision.

[DirkGently]

20. Oh? Did he say citizens can't be detained without charges? Great -- where is that?

[Downtown Hound]

46. A signing statment doesn't mean jack shit

It's just empty words that have no power. It will not stop any abuses from this bullshit law. I can't believe so many of you are taken in by this signing statment garbage that you're willing to suspend the constitution just because Obama promises to behave himself.

Pathetic.

[polmaven]

11. Oh, come on!!

Do we really have to keep having facts coming in to these discussions??? Way to undermine good bashing material, there, Tex!! Sheeesh!

[MNBrewer]

12. Nice propaganda

1. "Obama then strongly debunked once and for all the notion that the NDAA detention provisions apply to American citizens, “Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note)."

Here's that text "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

This means that the President can do anything to anyone, anywhere in the world if he believes that they fit the description. American citizens not excluded.

2. "Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”"

The AUMF grants unlimited power to the President (apparently), and the NDAA does not change that.

3. "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.”"

Under the AUMF, the existing laws regarding detention are rendered moot. Anything goes as long as the President agrees.

[stockholmer]

14. +10000, the OP is pure bollocks

[DirkGently]

17. Funny, when we blew up that kid with a missile, we heard AUMF trumped the Constitution.

Last edited Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Now, suddenly, everything's okay because AUMF DOESN'T trump the Constitution?

Which is it, I wonder? Did we unlawfully kill an American citizen then, or is it unlawful to detain them now?

[Major Hogwash]

24. Not true.

President Obama used a signing statement to clarify his opposition to the language in that particular section of the bill.

I will believe the President much more than any anonymous person on the internet.

[mazzarro]

29. Yes indeed - just like people believed G.W. Bush more than all the screaming antiwar activists?

People keep amazing me with this unfettered belief that the president - whomever it is - will tell the people the whole truth! Whether he is democrat or rethug, the president's scheme regarding what he is doing is never fully displayed for us all to see or know.

[Downtown Hound]

36. It's an excuse they can later use to explain their ignorance when their rosy predictions turn out to

be false. I hear it from people who supported the Iraq War in the early days all the time. "Oh my, I never thought that the president of the United States would...would...lie to me like that. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you."

Yes, and I'm shocked at all the people that still cling to these childlike fantasies of the president being some holier than thou being.

[Downtown Hound]

35. A signing statement?

What does that mean exactly? That the president personally opposes that language but signed it into law anyways? Oh gee, I feel better. We all know that Obama will both be president forever and that presidents NEVER lie.

[Major Hogwash]

39. You didn't know that?

Seriously, you must have missed the other part of that story.

[Downtown Hound]

41. Once again, please try clarifying your ramblings a little bit so they make sense. n/t

[MNBrewer]

55. Signing statements are extra-Constitutional

Just like much of what Bush and now Obama are doing with respect to the War On Terror. They carry no weight of law whatsoever. The next president is free to disregard each and every word penned by President Obama in that signing statement. It's worth about the paper it's printed on.

[Major Hogwash]

59. President Obama already signed this bill into law.

Last edited Thu Jan 5, 2012, 02:16 AM - Edit history (1)

Therefore it is not propaganda, it is the law.

[MNBrewer]

60. The signing statement carries no force of law

it is worth about as much as the paper it's printed on.

[Major Hogwash]

61. You said that already.

I read that the first time you said it.

[MNBrewer]

62. And you replied with a non sequitur, so I repeated it.

[Major Hogwash]

64. It is the law.

How many times do I need to tell you that?

You quoted 2 sections from the bill, called it propaganda, and then winced when I told you that President Obama used a signing statement when he signed that bill into law.

[MNBrewer]

65. No, I called the OP propaganda

I don't think I winced. I believe you are incorrect in that assertion.

[Downtown Hound]

63. Are you honestly trying to say that the president's signing statement carries the rule of law with

it?

Really? You're trying to say that Obama penning his thoughts about a piece of legislation is the same thing as the rule of law? Wow.

I can't tell you how relieved I am that such scholarly geniuses like all you people defending this bill are on the ball and have it all worked out. I'm about as relieved at that thought as I am of Homer Simpson running a nuclear power plant. Thankfully though, that last bit is only fiction. I only wish this bill and the cantankerously stupid arguments defending it were also.

[lib2DaBone]

13. We already have the Patriot Act, War Commissions Act, secret CIA prisons all over the globe...

Why did Carl Levin find it so URGENT to sneak this piece-of crap-legislation through at this time?

It's not like we have unemployment or wars in the mideast or anything else to deal with.

Everything they do in Washington is for a "reason".. and you know it isn't to benefit the people.

[webDude]

19. Why? OWS is one reason. This Act that was passed, IS terrorism, by the state.

It keeps people in line.

[Downtown Hound]

38. BINGO!

One thing the Obama cultists and apologists never seem to realize is that the 1% know they are in trouble. People are starting to see through the lies and are starting to fight back. They also know that things could get a lot worse in the coming years, and that what started as protests last year could easily turn into riots and other more forceful action. They fear this. That's the real reason behind passing this bill now. There's simply no other reason for it.

[treestar]

18. They will believe what they want to believe, regardless of facts

How dare you interfere in a good outrage!

[Downtown Hound]

40. What fact would that be?

That this bill doesn't allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens? That's not true, it does. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[treestar]

52. No, it doesn't

And it's at least subject to debate. Suitable for law review articles, which require more than just instant outrage.

[Downtown Hound]

53. Okay, explain to me how it doesn't

Where does it say that? The burden is on you to prove that it forbids American citizens from being subject to indefinite military detention. So let's hear it. Make it good.

Where does it say American citizens are exempt from this?

[treestar]

54. Here's a start

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

At least a start, without hysterics.

No, the burden is not on me just because you set yourself up as the standard for all that is right. The burden is on you to prove your assertions, since you're the one claiming the statute is unconstitutional.

[Downtown Hound]

56. LOL. From your own link:

"Does the NDAA authorize the indefinite detention of citizens?

No, though it does not foreclose the possibility either."


Gee, do you have any other great sources?

[Downtown Hound]

58. Oh and as for me proving that it is unconstitutional, I give you the 5th Amendment

to the U.S. constitution.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

Boy that was hard to do. Not.

[FedUp_Queer]

81. However...

The ACLU, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International beg to differ with you, but, hell's bells, what do "they" know?

[DirkGently]

21. "I want to clarify that my Administration will not "

Disingenuous game-playing. He says he won't, not that the law doesn't contemplate it.

[lunasun]

33. What kind of rag tag crap is that from a constitutional lawyer???? Pleeez like a used car lot

contract or something....
"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, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

[DirkGently]

66. He's been convinced to hold on to power he says he will not use. Wasn't that the plot of LOTR?

No matter how much anyone trusts Obama's judgment and intentions, we WILL have a President in power who will do exactly the wrong thing with it. The entire basis of the Constitution and the Bill of rights flows from this principle.

Can't imagine why anyone wouldn't acknowledge that.

[FedUp_Queer]

72. This from the same president who

ordered the murder of an American citizen without trial. Why, given that, should we actually believe his administration wouldn't? Here's the funny thing. All these people saying the bill doesn't actually do what it says it does. Then Obama issues a signing statement saying he will not do what the bill does not, apparently, give him the power to do (at least according to many here). I'm going to declare, right now, even though I am not able to jump out of my eighth story floor and start flying by flapping my wings, I will not, therefore, jump out of my eighth story window and start flying by flapping my wings.

[plantwomyn]

23. "NDAA does a lot of things, but the one thing it doesn't do is authorize the detention of Americans"

Actually it does. While the article and even the signing statement are good reads, the Bill, not so much. Read sections 1031 and 1032. The word exempt does not appear in those military detention sections. Does not "require" yes, "exempt from" no. The big change is that they CODIFED what they had already gave the President the authority to do in the AUMF AND they FORCE the President to come up with procedures to be followed and to turn any person detained under this section over to the military for detention. The President CAN submit a waiver to Congress.

Section 1032: (b,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.

Why doesn't it say that UNITED STATES CITIZENS are EXEMPT? Because they are NOT.

BTW one of Feinstein's Amendments would have made UNITED STATES CITIZENS arrested on American soil EXEMPT but it failed.

So when Obama says "My Administration" he means JUST that. Next guy/gal? Who knows?

But please, everyone read about Padilla before you freak out about this being something NEW. The only thing new is that the neocons demanded military rather than civilian detention. And they got just that.

[roseBudd]

31. And they should not be if they are actively attempting to cause loss of life

for the purpose of terrorism, whether it is anthrax, PETN, or some other type of IED

None of the OWS campers are in danger of being scooped up for camping, mic checking, carrying signs, etc

Times Square Bomber, life in prison

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Times_Square_car_bombing_attempt

The vehicle had been parked on a tourist-crowded block at the eastern corner of 1 Astor Plaza (intersection of West 45th Street and Broadway), near the entrance to the Minskoff Theatre which was showing the musical The Lion King.

The team found in the rear of the vehicle:

* two travel alarm clocks with batteries that apparently were fashioned as triggering devices, connected by electrical wires to
* two red full 5-gallon cans of gasoline, sandwiching
* 40+ consumer-grade M-88 firecrackers inside a 20-ounce metal container (wrapped in duct tape, with its end removed),
* gunpowder,
* three full 20-gallon propane tanks, and
* a 55-inch (1,400 mm) x 32-inch (810 mm) green metal gun locker that contained:
o a metal pressure cooker pot containing a thicket of wires, that also connected to the alarm clocks;
o 250 pounds (110 kg) of urea-based fertilizer in 8 plastic bags; and
o 120 M-88s.[28][33][34][35][22][36]

[Downtown Hound]

42. Why do we need a special law at this time to deal with terrorists

When our civilian courts have dealt with them effectively for years now? Why the sudden need for this bill? You make it sound like there's no other option, when the truth is we've been doing just fine with what we've been doing.

[plantwomyn]

44. I really don't care if they have a freaking atom bomb.

As a Citizen of the United States they have Constitutional rights, none of which are prefixed by "except when ..."

Among the biggest gripes we had against Ole' King George lll is that he refused us trial by jury and the right of habeas corpus.

American citizens are NOT enemy combatants even if they ARE traitors. How would we KNOW who is in custody?

Oh and BTW the Times Square bomber was read his Miranda rights, was detained in a civilian jail, was tried by a jury and as you state he got life in prison.

[lunasun]

34. plantwomyn happy holidays from lunasun in Chicago!!!

[DirkGently]

69. It's not that it's "new." It codifies & builds upon Bush's illegal interpretation of AUMF.

And yes, whatever Obama's intentions, it is a deadly extension of un-Constitutional powers for future Executives.

[ddickey]

32. It does authorize the detention of American citizens; it simply doesn't "require"'it

Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution allows Congress to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus in times of invasion or rebellion. Article 1 deals with the congress; article 2 deals with executive powers. During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, infringing, as many believed, on congressional privilege. The rights of the congressional branch vs. the executive branch in this matter has been an issue since 1862, when Lincoln acted as he did.

What these provisions in NDAA do are two fold: 1, it permanently codifies the clause in article 1, section 9, suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus for certain individuals indefinitely; and, 2, they split the difference, so to speak, between Presidential and Congressional authority. But the problem with this provision is that it is unconstitutional--and it's been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court n the past. "After the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex parte Milligan (1866), ruling that trials of civilians by presidentially created military commissions are unconstitutional." (source and quotes: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/vance4.html)

To exempt American citizens in these provisions defeats the purpose of including these provisions in the bill. As it states, detaining a US citizen is not a requirement; that implies that American citizens can be detained. And, since the language is so broad, American citizens can now possibly be detained for a variety of "reasons"; Obama may be rational in that he probably won't abuse these provisions; but an irrational President, someone who responds viscerally or emotionally, someone who kowtows to ideologues now have legislation on the books, legislation no one will challenge--even though similar actions in the past have been deemed unconstitutional.

[FedUp_Queer]

73. Ding!!! Ding!!! Ding!!!

[Uncle Joe]

74. Not to mention citizenship is locked in stone.. except it isn't, should Congress pass this POS bill

and the President sign it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002154933

"Civil libertarian relief appears to have been somewhat naive however, because Congress is currently considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the 'Enemy Expatriation Act', a bill sponsored by 'Mr. Kill Switch' and 'Defender of Israel', Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA) that, if passed, will give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship for "engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States." Take note, you don't have to be convicted of 'terrorism', you simply have to be accused of 'hostilities against the United States', like camping out or protesting with the OWS gang, for one example, or possibly even writing articles such as this one. This bill seems to be an effort to side-step the clamored for change to the language of the 'Indefinite Detention bill' within the NDAA that seems to have, more or less, excluded American citizens from indefinite detention without trial. Liberman - or whoever is pulling his puppet strings - probably thought long and hard about this problem and decided that the best way to re-include American citizens in the 'Indefinite Detention bill' was to provide for the removal of their citizenship! Genius!"

P.S. How many Americans would've lost their citizenship during the McCarthy Witch Hunt Era and what's preventing us from having another one?

[Downtown Hound]

37. As others have noted, your post is a steaming pile of crap

This bill definitely allows for the detention of American citizens. And one thing that I often find missing from this debate is that hey, I'm not really okay with holding ANYBODY without trial or charges for years on end, and I'm really quite appalled that so many on this board seem to be.

You would do much better in a country like China.

[ddickey]

57. I agree completely.

You're absolutely right. It is typically missing from most arguments. I'm sorry I neglected to mention it as well.

[blkmusclmachine]

48. Miss the days when "Tx4obama" was on my ignore list.

Ah, the good ol' days!

[Tx4obama]

68. Happy New Year to YOU :)

[MFrohike]

67. As noted elsewhere

It doesn't authorize it and it doesn't prohibit it. The language in this law only states that it does not expand existing law. In other words, you better check existing law before sounding the trumpets.

[JDPriestly]

75. The language of the law is too ambiguous.

It's nice that Jason Easley thinks it is OK, but Jason Easly apparently majored in political science. There is no indication that he has a background in law or in interpreting law in the way that courts do.

Several prominent lawyers have expressed doubts about the meaning of the law. I personally think it is vague. The definition of terrorism and of supporting terrorism is vague in this law and in the Patriot Act and could include a lot of harmless or just plain crazy people and in some cases even nonviolent people who may not know that they are supporting a group that is considered to be a terrorist group by the government.

The law should make it very clear that, with the exception of the National Guard in extremely unusual emergencies, the military should not be involved in law enforcement within the US whether the laws are to be enforced against so-called terrorists or ordinary criminals.

[morningfog]

78. I think that misses the point.

A lot of discussion and debate has been had about whether or not it allows for the indefinite detention of Americans. This debate has distracted from the fact that it does, explicitly, allow for the indefinite detention of non-citizens. That is bad enough for this to be horrible law.

From the article linked in the OP: "The NDAA is a terrible law because it forbids the funding to close GITMO. It is a terrible law because the language of the bill contains a predisposition towards indefinite detentions. The language used is the right’s attempt to revive the policies of the war on terror. The NDAA is lousy because what it is advocating runs counter to who we are as a people and what this great nation stands for."

I realize that the numbers were there, in theory, to override a veto. I wonder, though, if a veto along with an articulated reason for the veto, would have changed the frame and forced the bill to change. I wish the Dems in Congress hadn't supported it. I wish Obama hadn't signed it.

[Luminous Animal]

79. And what gives Jason Easley, with a Bachelors in Political Science...

more authority about this issue than the Constitutional lawyers at the ACLU and a host of other Constitutional lawyers?