Americans have just lost the right to a fair trial

[the_gloaming09]

Looks like Obama WON'T be vetoing the bill afterall...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/us/politics/obama-wont-veto-military-authorization-bill.html

[Saffire]

Ohh I guess that means when Parrotdies said,

 

In the long-run, do I think this bill will matter? No, because all the signs on the Hill points to President Obama vetoing the bill for being too restrictive.

 

...he was totally wrong, as usual.

[para-para-parrotdies]

Ohh I guess that means when Parrotdies said,

 

 

 

...he was totally wrong, as usual.

 

Or maybe it's because there have been adjustments made by a House-Senate conference committee and now there's a revised bill.

[Saffire]

“It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,” remarked Graham. “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”

 

 

“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

 

"As a result of these changes, 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 advisers will not recommend a veto. However, if in the process of implementing this law we determine that it will negatively impact our counterterrorism professionals and undercut our commitment to the rule of law, we expect that the authors of these provisions will work quickly and tirelessly to correct these problems," Carney added.

 

lol, you can't make this stuff up. And Parrotdies just laps it up, with the faith of an altar boy. When he's not busy reading National Review, of course.

 

Your reputation for being accurate has already been shot, Parrotdies. You might not want do dig a deeper hole for yourself here.

[para-para-parrotdies]

Saffire, have you had the chance to read the conference report for the NDAA?

 

The Senate bill has been watered down considerably.

[Saffire]

Uh huh. In ways that are completely irrelevant to this thread.

 

Have you had a chance to read the Q4 report for Proctor and Gamble? :P

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Your prediction was plain wrong, and you refuse to admit this bill is even a concern for Americans' civil liberties - a position that runs counter to a huge number of qualified legal scholars and reputable journalists. Hell, it even runs counter to the authors of the bill!

 

So again: you go read National Review and vote for Lindsey Graham or whatever. I'm sticking with the ACLU on this one.

[para-para-parrotdies]

Letter from Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) explaining and clarifying the revised provisions in the NDAA:

 

First, the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) section in our bill, Section 1021, merely codifies current law. It specifically states, “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.” Quite simply, our courts will decide what the law is regarding detention of U.S. citizens.

 

Second, any U.S. citizen detained under Section 1021 has the right under habeas corpus to have the legality of any such detention determined by our courts. The courts have also held that anyone detained under the AUMF at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, also has habeas rights. We do not change these rights.

 

Third, Section 1022, entitled, “Military Custody For Foreign al-Qaeda Terrorists” specifically excludes US citizens. It states, “the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” It also states the requirement to detain under Section 1022 “does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.”

[Saffire]

It's irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

 

And you keep referencing a *requirement* of military detention as though it invalidates the *possibility* of military detention.

 

Nice try misleading people, Parrotdies.

 

This is a violation of due process and you know it.

 

PS: Your prediction was wrong. No, I haven't forgotten. ;)

[Saffire]

[para-para-parrotdies]

PS: Your prediction was wrong. No, I haven't forgotten. ;)

 

I predicted that Obama would veto the Senate bill, not the current Conference Report.

 

 

Background on Changes in the NDAA:

Softening the “requirement” for military custody:

-The word “requirement” was removed from the title of the provision that purports to require military custody for certain terrorists.

-Added a paragraph to the military custody provision that clearly states that “[n]othing in [it] shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.”

Providing the President additional discretion over implementation:

-Provided the President with the authority to develop implementing procedures for Section 1022, which purports to require military custody of certain terrorists. Among other things, this provides the President with additional discretion to minimize the impact of the provision on counterterrorism operations, and in some cases to limit the application or implementation of the requirement to place individuals in military custody.

-Provided the President with discretion to ensure that ongoing interrogations are not disrupted by this provision, stating in the conference report that he can decide when these determinations need to be made and when and how they are to be implemented.

 

Increasing the flexibility of the waiver process:

-The waiver authority was transferred from the Secretary of Defense to the President, who can delegate that authority to those individuals who are positioned to make these judgments and to do so in a way that will minimize the disruption of counterterrorism operations.

 

Ensuring that we track current law and minimize risks associated with legislating on AUMF:

-Made our requested modifications to the provision that codifies military detention authority under the September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Though this provision remains unnecessary, the changes ensure that we are merely restating our existing legal authorities and minimize the risk of unnecessary and distracting litigation.

 

Removed Provisions in the House Bill:

-The conference report does not include language from the House bill that would have eliminated our authority to use our federal courts from our counterterrorism arsenal.

 

These changes in the Conference Report is why the Obama administration has removed the veto threat:

 

"After intensive engagement by senior administration officials and the President himself, the Administration has succeeded in prompting the authors of the detainee provisions to make several important changes, including the removal of problematic provisions.... As a result of these changes, 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." - White House Press Secretary

[Saffire]

I predicted that Obama would veto the Senate bill, not the current Conference Report.

 

"It's a totally different bill! See! They changed a few lines that are entirely irrelevant to the topic Saffire started!"

 

Not gonna work, kid.

 

Go read National Review and hang out with Rush Limbaugh, mmkay? Nobody's interested in what your authoritarian friends have to say on these subjects.

 

Also: stop trying to change the subject. If you want to start your own thread about the other features in the NDAA, you're welcome to do that.

 

Nice job dodging my point about "requirement"/"possibility" distinction. And all my other points.

 

Nobody's falling for your crap anymore.

[para-para-parrotdies]

"It's a totally different bill! See! They changed a few lines that are entirely irrelevant to the topic Saffire started!"

 

Nope. Completely relevant.

[Megalomania]

Nobody's falling for your crap anymore.

 

Dude calm down and stop attacking him, he can post whatever he wants. You get all angry and then say that everyone hates you, but by provoking attacks like this you're asking for it.

 

Just agree to disagree and be done with it, my God. :|

[Saffire]

He's not disagreeing with me, he's OBVIOUSLY ignoring what I'm arguing. If you read my posts, you'd see that.

 

I told him pages ago that he's entitled to his opinion, but that it's in the minority. And he wouldn't let up.

 

So I layed down the olive branch first, and he just kept hacking away at me without ever admitting that my position *might be valid*.

 

I don't have a problem with disagreement, I have a problem with intentionally misleading readers and willful ignorance.

 

My God. :blank:

[Saffire]

You get all angry and then say that everyone hates you

 

Also, I frankly don't care if you hate me or not.

 

It pains Parrotdies to admit that someone else might be right. That's a horribly immature quality to have.

[Megalomania]

He's not disagreeing with me, he's OBVIOUSLY ignoring what I'm arguing. If you read my posts, you'd see that.

 

I told him pages ago that he's entitled to his opinion, but that it's in the minority. And he wouldn't let up.

 

So I layed down the olive branch first, and he just kept hacking away at me without ever admitting that my position *might be valid*.

 

I don't have a problem with disagreement, I have a problem with intentionally misleading readers and willful ignorance.

 

My God. :blank:

 

Maybe he's ignoring you because he doesn't care what you think? After all he's entitled to his opinion, whether it be minority or majority opinion. I'm pretty what he's posting is just as legitimate as what you're posting, just a different side of it. And you know what, politics have several sides! :o

 

Also, I frankly don't care if you hate me or not.

 

It pains Parrotdies to admit that someone else might be right. That's a horribly immature quality to have.

 

And where did I say that I hate you?

You're just as immature as he is then.

[Saffire]

And where did I say that I hate you?

You're just as immature as he is then.

 

Well I guess I just ignored you because I don't care what you think! :cool:

[Saffire]

That faint sound you heard is the clenching of teeth. Glenn Greenwald debunks the myths spread by supporters of the 2011 NDAA:

 

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

 

Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.” In damage control mode, White-House-allied groups are now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill’s dangers.

 

For that reason, it is very worthwhile to briefly examine — and debunk — the three principal myths being spread by supporters of this bill, and to do so very simply: by citing the relevant provisions of the bill, as well as the relevant passages of the original 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), so that everyone can judge for themselves what this bill actually includes (this is all above and beyond the evidence I assembled in writing about this bill yesterday):

 

Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention

 

Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its title says, “Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.” The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” With regard to those “covered individuals,” this is the power vested in the President by the next section, ©:

 

 

It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) – to detain them “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” That is the very definition of “indefinite detention,” and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision.

 

It is true, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) already vests the power of indefinite detention in the President, and post-9/11 deferential courts have largely accepted that view (just as the Bush DOJ argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) allowed them to eavesdrop on Americans without the warrants required by law). That’s why the NDAA can state that nothing is intended to expand the 2001 AUMF while achieving exactly that: because the Executive and judicial interpretation being given to the 20o1 AUMF is already so much broader than its language provides.

 

But this is the first time this power of indefinite detention is being expressly codified by statute (there’s not a word about detention powers in the 2001 AUMF). Indeed, as the ACLU and HRW both pointed out, it’s the first time such powers are being codified in a statute since the McCarthy era Internal Security Act of 1950, about which I wrote yesterday.

 

Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF

 

This myth is very easily dispensed with. The scope of the war as defined by the original 2001 AUMF was, at least relative to this new bill, quite specific and narrow. Here’s the full extent of the power the original AUMF granted:

 

(a) IN GENERAL- 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.

 

Under the clear language of the 2001 AUMF, the President’s authorization to use force was explicitly confined to those who (a) helped perpetrate the 9/11 attack or (b) harbored the perpetrators. That’s it. Now look at how much broader the NDAA is with regard to who can be targeted:

 

 

Section (1) is basically a re-statement of the 2001 AUMF. But Section (2) is a brand new addition. It allows the President to target not only those who helped perpetrate the 9/11 attacks or those who harbored them, but also: anyone who “substantially supports” such groups and/or “associated forces.” Those are extremely vague terms subject to wild and obvious levels of abuse (see what Law Professor Jonathan Hafetz told me in an interview last week about the dangers of those terms). This is a substantial statutory escalation of the War on Terror and the President’s powers under it, and it occurs more than ten years after 9/11, with Osama bin Laden dead, and with the U.S. Government boasting that virtually all Al Qaeda leaders have been eliminated and the original organization (the one accused of perpetrating 9/11 attack) rendered inoperable.

 

It is true that both the Bush and Obama administration have long been arguing that the original AUMF should be broadly “interpreted” so as to authorize force against this much larger scope of individuals, despite the complete absence of such language in that original AUMF. That’s how the Obama administration justifies its ongoing bombing of Yemen and Somalia and its killing of people based on the claim that they support groups that did not even exist at the time of 9/11 – i.e., they argue: these new post-9/11 groups we’re targeting are “associated forces” of Al Qaeda and the individuals we’re killing “substantially support” those groups. But this is the first time that Congress has codified that wildly expanded definition of the Enemy in the War on Terror. And all anyone has to do to see that is compare the old AUMF with the new one in the NDAA.

 

Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill

 

This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.

 

There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide 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.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad).

 

But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.

 

That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody. Here is what it says:

 

 

The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.

 

The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo. That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.

 

In sum, there is simply no question that this bill codifies indefinite detention without trial (Myth 1). There is no question that it significantly expands the statutory definitions of the War on Terror and those who can be targeted as part of it (Myth 2). The issue of application to U.S. citizens (Myth 3) is purposely muddled — that’s why Feinstein’s amendments were rejected — and there is consequently no doubt this bill can and will be used by the U.S. Government (under this President or a future one) to bolster its argument that it is empowered to indefinitely detention even U.S. citizens without a trial (NYT Editorial: “The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial”; Sen. Bernie Sanders: “This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges”).

 

Even if it were true that this bill changes nothing when compared to how the Executive Branch has been interpreting and exercising the powers of the old AUMF, there are serious dangers and harms from having Congress — with bipartisan sponsors, a Democratic Senate and a GOP House — put its institutional, statutory weight behind powers previously claimed and seized by the President alone. That codification entrenches these powers. As the New York Times Editorial today put it: the bill contains “terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law.”

 

What’s particularly ironic (and revealing) about all of this is that former White House counsel Greg Craig assured The New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer back in February, 2009 that it’s “hard to imagine Barack Obama as the first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law.” Four months later, President Obama proposed exactly such a law — one that The New York Times described as “a departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of the government either face criminal charges or walk free” — and now he will sign such a scheme into law.

 

So now even the New York Times is interpreting the bill the way I am. Huh.

 

[Cobalt]

The way this bill is interpreted now doesn't matter. At some point down the road, its ambiguity will lead to its abuse, and we can all forget about that old concept known as Habeas Corpus.

 

^ this is what i are concerned about ^

[Saffire]

The US is trying its best to drag other Western nations down into fascism with it. I really hope the Australians/New Zealanders/Swiss/Danish/etc. take a more Ron Paul approach.

 

Cobalt, you should have seen the Republican debate last night. It was horrific. They were literally talking about abolishing courts.

 

Here's a clip from it:

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhbGL3F8r4c&t=8m31s]Ron Paul Highlights in 12/15/2011 Presidential Debate - YouTube[/ame]

 

(The good parts are after 8:31)

[para-para-parrotdies]

I believe Adam Serwer from Mother Jones magazine does the best job of outlining what the NDAA does and doesn't do. The following are just the highlights that I picked out, not to be misleading but to clarify some of the misconceptions in this thread:

 

So what exactly does the bill do? It does not, contrary to what many media outlets have reported, authorize the president to indefinitely detain without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism who is captured in the US.

 

So it's simply not true, as the Guardian wrote yesterday, that the bill "allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay." When the New York Times editorial page writes that the bill would "strip the F.B.I., federal prosecutors and federal courts of all or most of their power to arrest and prosecute terrorists and hand it off to the military," or that the "legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial," they're simply wrong.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/defense-bill-passed-so-what-does-it-do-ndaa

[Saffire]

Again, I think it's time you admit that my views on this subject are at least valid, Parrotdies.

 

Also the article you linked to isn't as thorough and doesn't substantively dispute Glenn Greenwald's interpretation.

 

So be a good debate partner and do like I did - admit that yes, interpretation in the law is possible.

[Saffire]

http://ottumwacourier.com/local/x1666051253/OHS-student-charged-with-terrorism

 

16 year old girl charged with terrorism.

 

That happened fast.

[kasaa]

There is still an investigation going on, I think you should wait a while and see how this develops before jumping to conclusions.

[Saffire]

That's not the point, the point is they called her a "terrorist". According to the NDAA, they can indefinitely detain her without a trial now.