WH OKs military detention of terrorism suspects

AP

The White House is signing off on a controversial new law that would authorize the U.S. military to arrest and indefinitely detain alleged al Qaeda members or other terrorist operatives captured on American soil.

As the bill neared final passage in the House of Representatives and the Senate on Wednesday, the Obama administration announced it would support passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contains slightly watered-down provisions giving the military a front line role in domestic terrorism cases.

The administration abandoned its long-held veto threat due to changes in the final version of the bill, namely that in its view, the military custody mandate has been "softened." The bill now gives the President the immediate power to issue a waiver of the military custody requirement, instead of the Defense Secretary, and gives the President discretion in implementing these new provisions.

"We have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the President's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the President's senior advisors will not recommend a veto," the White House statement said.

The detainee provisions are just one part of the annual NDAA authorizing $662 billion in federal defense spending next year.

While the bill never expanded the authority to detain American citizens indefinitely without charges, proponents said the legislation would codify court decisions finding the President does have the authority to declare "enemy combatants," as commander-in-chief and under the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force against al Qaeda and its allies. The administration, which has pledged not to use this power, believes the bill leaves this legal issue unresolved.

"By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side."

The debate over captured terrorism suspects
Senate keeps controversial detainee policy in defense bill
Bagram: The Other Guantanamo?

FBI Director Robert Mueller, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, said the provisions still could create confusion among counter-terrorism professionals.

"My concern is that you don't want FBI agents and the military showing up at the same time, with some uncertainty" as to who has control, Mueller said, and raised this hypothetical example: "A case that we're investigating on three individuals, two of whom are American citizens and would not go to military custody and the third is not an American citizen and could go to military custody?"

Mueller was joined earlier in the detainee debate by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in opposing the military custody provision, because they said it might inhibit flexibility by counter-terrorism professionals, restrain federal, state, and local law enforcement authorities, and risk losing the cooperation of terror arrestees.

"If President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American's reputation for upholding the rule of law," said Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era, and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill."

Bill opponents have noted that in the decade since the 9/11, the government has successfully convicted over 300 people for terrorism-related crimes, including thwarted plots to bomb passenger jets, subway lines, and landmarks such as Times Square and the Sears Tower.

By comparison, the military justice system, although stymied by constitutional challenges, has completed only six cases in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where 170 detainees remain.

[brucearnold]

Charge Congress with Seditious Conspiracy!

Regardless of whether Bushbama signs the NDAA, charge Congress with Seditious Conspiracy for passing it:

1. Sections 1031 and 1032 were renumbered to 1021 and 1022 in the final wording of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (the "NDAA"). Here is the final wording (PDF page 81 of 371):

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-12-12/pdf/CREC-2011-12-12-pt1-PgH8356-5.pdf

2. PLEASE read constitutional lawyer Glen Greenwald's explanation of that final wording here:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/

3. Use NaSI SARs to charge Carl Levin, Howard "Buck" McKeon and your U.S. Representative and Senators who voted for NDAA (S.1867/H.R.1540) with "Seditious Conspiracy" under U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 115 Section 2384. Details here:

http://corporategreedchronicles.com/

DON'T BE AFRAID TO FIGHT CORPORATE FASCISM AND FIGHT IT ***NOW*** AMERICA!

DON'T LET YOUR FEAR COST YOUR CHILDREN THEIR FREEDOM AND THEIR FUTURE!

[cybervigilante]

In Russia they demonstrated against Putin with no arrests, and their President even said he respected their opinion.

In America, OWS demonstrates against the thieving banksters who destroyed our economy, and they are gassed, beaten, arrested, rousted, and then slurred by hateradio.

But soon, the military will be able to "detain" protestors.

So much for freedom. The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves at these Congressional traitors.

[cybervigilante]

Let us consider the Declaration of Independence - with stress on Abolish. No, it's not law - but it expressed the clear Intent of the Framers of the Constitution. And when the USSC interprets the Constitution, it is always by way of divining the Intent of the writers of said document:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to ABOLISH it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." --Declaration of Independence

[johnjmccarthy]

All those who voted for NDAA, knowing full well that it includes indefinite detention of American citizens and arbitrary arrests without charge, bail or lawyer flies in the face of the US Constitution, which all those who voted swore to protect and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic, have just violated their own oaths of office.

Thomas Jefferson said that if future governments disregarded the Constitution of The United States it would be the duty of US citizens to
remove those violators from government by any means necessary, including the use of firearms.

There are not enough military or police to arrest, control and incarcerate the tens of millions of US citizens who still believe they are bound by their oaths of enlistment and commission in the Armed Forces of the United States.

Ordering Americans to shoot other Americans will lite the fuze that will bring on the next revolution.
This nightmare is actually unfolding before our eyes. The New World Order is quite ugly to those who have, in reality, been living in a fantasy nirvana.

The lies that led us to wage wars have come home to roost. Every person who donned their countries uniform now knows the truth of the propaganda of spreading democracy and freedom based upon our Constitution is, and has been, pure ********. Those of us who have served have just received a golden shower for our duped efforts. Its all been a lie.


John McCarthy
[e-mail]

[ihaveonethingtosay]

Obama, I'm sorry that you went back on all that was HOPE and good about changes to America. You became exactly what we fought against. I am ashamed to have supported you. You should be ashamed because you sold out not only Americans freedoms but the rest of the world that was looking to you for help. I hope Ron Paul gets the nomination so he can throw you out where you belong.

[cybervigilante]

I want my vote back. Obama promised to help the people, but he has only helped the Banks, the Insurers, and the Drug Companies. Half our economy is totally fake - representing only "creative financial instruments," but Timmy Geithner, Obama's puppeteer, says we can't tax the banks, even though we Do tax the few remaining factories we have, that make real goods instead of fraudulent money-on-money deals.

[alexznumber1]

"good about changes to America"

What do you mean about this? Did you mean he was good for good changes or he was "good" as in for changes in general for the United States. You fool he meant changes in america as in changes of the government a fundamental change. That means to completely change what this government is about. This Government is about freedom. To fundamentally change that what do you get? A dictator

[curmudgeon_1]

So, how is it that American's who, "might be," or, "probably are" guilty of treason are now being "assassinated" (Anwar al laki) for it? This action undertaken/ordered by the executive branch subverts the 6th Amendment! For one to be guilty of treason, one has to be proven in the court of law that this is indeed what they are guilty of---this is the American tradition! Innocent until proven guilty---even of treason! You say that we are guaranteed "due process," and indeed we are given the proper understanding of the 6th Amendment, which states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." This is what Americans are "guaranteed" until recently. This is why this issue is so important! If they "suspect" any American citizen of anything that can be construed into a "terrorist act" (the definition of which is very broad in nature.), then the individual is no longer granted their 6th Amendment--notice the first 4 words of the above quoted passage (In all criminal prosecutions). In other words, given the new definitions qualifying terrorism, or, belligerent behavior, which includes infractions such as speech perceived as "hate speech," one could be considered a "enemy/unprivileged belligerent"---the equivalent of a terrorist. Anything construed into anything violent, which now includes, as I just made clear, even nonviolent behavior, can now be placed into military tribunal. So, in case you haven't got it yet, civilians can, and will, be treated as military prisoners, without their constitutionally protected right to "due process," if they are "suspected" of belligerent behavior. This, "my friends" is not our "due process"! Now that this is law, suspicion is enough to guarantee that the accused will NOT be provided their "due process."

[Contentious333]

curmudgeon_1

Read the fine print before you tell me that these laws make it for American Citizens.

U.S. Constitution Article 3 Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

U.S. Constitution Amendment 14
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481)
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Ok, that being said, if you are no longer a U.S. citizen, then you don't have the right guaranteed to the CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA by the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Does anybody argue this point?

If you don't have the right, you don't have grounds to stand on. That simple. So please tell me, how do you plan to say it is interfering with our rights, and we must fight it when it obviously is NOT, and we are trading nothing for security?

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8601-250_162-57343287.html?assetTypeId=41&blogId=&tag=accordionB;commentWrapper#ixzz1gogM5STt

Like I sai, make sure you read EVERYTHING before you tell me that I have not proven my point, and I am now completely for the law. This sets my argument into stone, and I hold the pickaxe.

[jackp32]

Obama wants U.S. citizens included so he can order the jailing at Gitmo of people like Neal Boortz, Mark Levin, Mike Gallager, Michael Savage and others who criticize him and his socialist policies. Senator Graham has pubicly stated that the bill includes U.S. citizens.

[cybervigilante]

The catch in the law quoted by contentious is "committing any acts of treason.." Who defines that, since it's a Very vague definition. Oh, the government or the President defines it - as they plase. I bet criticizing the banks will soon be defined as treason, since it looks like they're already acting as if it's treason. Now I feel okay.

[onecaguy]

"While the bill never expanded the authority to detain American citizens indefinitely without charges"

This is absolutely NOT TRUE. This bill does apply to US citizens, either inside or outside the country.

This is a clear breach of the Bill of Rights, but why would Obama even attempt to sign this?

This is worse than ANYTHING Bush passed.

[PC-Support999]

I too IMMEDIATELY had the CLEAR FEELING that all this IS JUST GOP ANTI-OBAMA ron paul NAZI TALK.

One California Guy, man, you ARE PERFECT. NO ONE, BUT NO ONE EVER BEATS YOU in a DISCUSSION.

MYLORD CA GUY. YOU should be president. But Obama is good too. This writer on CBS should not bolster, he will instead cripple CBS' quota ahaha

[mardec]

If the ACLU is against this law, then it MUST be the right thing to do. Anyone, whether an American citizen or not, who plans or plots to participate or aid a sworn enemy of the US who has already gone to war with us, has given up his rights as a citizen and MUST be considered an Enemy Combatant.

[rabbittraveler]

I read a comment on another board that said, "I now understand why the 2nd Amendment is there." I hope he/she also sees why politicians have been trying so very hard to take the guns away.

Most people are attacking Obama over this insanity. He is not blameless (more on that in a moment), but it's Congress that wrote and passed it (McCain and Communist Levin who were the bill sponsors).

I think they all know a financial collapse is coming and they are planning out the aftermath as best they can. They seem focused on indentifying people who could weather a collapse (investigating people with stockpiles of food for instance). Whatever they have planned depends on everyone being helpless and at the elite's whim. Yikes.

This bill lets them mop up dissent without having to explain any of it to the sheep. Obama threatened a veto - which shocked me given his dictatorial tendencies until I learned his issue with the bill was that the President didn't get to have his fingers in the indefinite detention pie. So they added him, and now he thinks it's just ducky.

God we're screwed.

http:// www . disclose . tv/action/viewvideo/85049/Ron_Paul_is_a_Threat/

[mykiwi]

Anyone else wondering WHY we're not seeing this on the TV national news?? We'd all better figure out what's proper to wear in a concentration camp. Oh,heavens! Maranatha!!

[PC-Support999]

ron paul IS a threat. Ron paul IS sadly a NAZI ( anti-abortion, anti women's rights, in this day and age!).

NO USA AINT "SCREWED". Tell Obama to destroy the china massmurder government. get rid of all debts.

i myself some months ago watchin too many alex jones vids thought UH, Obama is just continuing the wars.

such a total over-generalisation. obama DID end the Iraq bigtime action. afghanistan IS A CRAZY country just like PAKI's government.

china is the WORST NAZI OF ALL. china is the REAL threat, not only ron paul. and I LOVE asians or chinese people, tHEY THEMSELVES NOW in VILLAGES OPPOSE THEIR OWN NAZI GOVERNMENT which MASSMURDERS STILL and massmurdered since 1999 FOUR MILLION much too peaceful "Falun Gong".

Falun DAFA GONG. chinese for: FALUN gong is GOOD !

[Contentious333]

I know I told someone that I wasn't going to sum up my entire argument into one post, but I lied (sorry).

Here is all the information you need:

gicos

Here is your proof:

U.S. Constitution Article 3 Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

U.S. Constitution Amendment 14
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481)
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Ok, that being said, if you are no longer a U.S. citizen, then you don't have the right guaranteed to the CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA by the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Does anybody argue this point?

If you don't have the right, you don't have grounds to stand on. That simple. So please tell me, how do you plan to say it is interfering with our rights, and we must fight it when it obviously is NOT, and we are trading nothing for security?

[onecaguy]

You have no clue what you're talking about. The government can now imprison a US citizen for SUSPECTING them to be a terrorist. There IS not court of law, no jury, no judge. That is the entire point, there is no due process with this.

It's just merely the ACCUSATION by the State which can imprison you FOREVER...WITHOUT TRIAL. You don't see anything wrong with that?!?!

[onecaguy]

Why don't you read your own link? To be considered committing treason you need to "if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction".

Need to be CONVICTED by a COURT MARTIAL or other COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION.

This bill allows for UNLIMITED DETENTION WITHOUT any trial! There is no court martial, no sentence of treason!

[Corandfan]

How many groups of dissenters in our history might fall under this vague definition of terrorist? The Whiskey Rebellion might qualify. John Brown, Haymarket square bomber, KKK, Emma Goldman, George Lincoln Rockwell, Charles Manson, The Weathermen, Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, Patty Hearst, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky and the Yippies. All these groups and individuals have at least partially espoused violent overthrow of our government. Their actions and philosophies could be construed as "declaring war on the US."
Under Bush, the left complained about Jose Padilla's indefinite incarceration. Padilla was held as a material witness, under a legal theory which the courts have long upheld. Controversial nonetheless. A Padilla now need not be designated as a material witness by the courts. He need only be designated a terrorist at the sole whim of the Executive branch.
Our leaders, GOP and Dems, have failed us yet again. They have put into place a mechanism to ensure that the legitimacy of the US government can never be challenged by the threat of arms from it's citizenry. RIP Due Process, we knew ye well.

[cashedout]

"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prospers, none dare call it treason." Sir John Harrington 1561-1612

None Dare Call It Treason - John Stormer An excellent book on the never ending pursut of communision for Amercian. Socialism is just the warm up. When that dosen't create the utopia expected, then forced participation (or removal) begins.

[matt674885]

This is not "socialism" by any common understanding of the term, as far as I know. Rather, this is imperial government, in the sense that the imperial Roman emperor could do whatever he wanted to whomever he wanted—Roman citizen or not. They, too, lost their republic (that is, it seems we have as well).

If anything, this indefinite military detention provision is an attack upon those who, as of now, actually advocate socialism, or something like it (see Occupy Wall Street, etc.). This now-codified power enables the US president to, in effect, have the military arrest anyone without charge—and analysts, as well as myself, suggest and even do believe that Occupy Wall Street, as well as similar kinds of political movements and tendencies, are, in fact—along with terrorists—the butt of this bill. This is a broad-reaching legislative codification that, like "McCarthyism," will in all probability be used to, as I said, attack socialism, "communism," etc. etc. et al.