Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Obama signs Act that allows for indefinite detention of American citizens.
zombiegirl
beating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wasteland Veteran
Nobody seems to have posted this yet...
"Back in the beginning stages of the War on Terrorism, President Bush enacted the Patriot Act. This allowed the government to spy on citizens, monitoring their activities in order to discern whether or not someone is a terrorist. It brought about changes in law enforcement that allowed agencies to search phones, financial records, etc.
One of the most controversial aspects of the law is authorization of indefinite detention of non-U.S. citizens. Immigrants suspected of being terrorists would be detained without trial until the War on Terrorism finished.
On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed a law known as the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2012 fiscal year, or the H.R. 1540. Congress passes this act every year to monitor the budget for the Department of Defense. However, this year the NDAA bill has passed with new provisions that should have the entire country up with pitchforks.
Normally, this is just an act which details the monetary calls of the Department of Defense which is passed every year. However, the act passed for the 2012 fiscal year changes the bill and can be seen as an extension of the Patriot Act. Now, the indefinite detention has been extended to U.S. citizens as well. If people are spied on and suspected of being terrorists, they may be detained indefinitely without trial."
From: The Huffington Post
"Back in the beginning stages of the War on Terrorism, President Bush enacted the Patriot Act. This allowed the government to spy on citizens, monitoring their activities in order to discern whether or not someone is a terrorist. It brought about changes in law enforcement that allowed agencies to search phones, financial records, etc.
One of the most controversial aspects of the law is authorization of indefinite detention of non-U.S. citizens. Immigrants suspected of being terrorists would be detained without trial until the War on Terrorism finished.
On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed a law known as the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2012 fiscal year, or the H.R. 1540. Congress passes this act every year to monitor the budget for the Department of Defense. However, this year the NDAA bill has passed with new provisions that should have the entire country up with pitchforks.
Normally, this is just an act which details the monetary calls of the Department of Defense which is passed every year. However, the act passed for the 2012 fiscal year changes the bill and can be seen as an extension of the Patriot Act. Now, the indefinite detention has been extended to U.S. citizens as well. If people are spied on and suspected of being terrorists, they may be detained indefinitely without trial."
From: The Huffington Post
0
Comments
Thanks, ZG, for posting this (we've been too busy frothing at the mouth about guns all this time... :crazy: ). But it sounds like all the facts may not be in.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540
And then further down Obama said, "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."
This isn't inflated sensationalism, this is real.
"Senior administration officials, who asked not to be named, told ABC News, “The president strongly believes that to detain American citizens in military custody infinitely without trial, would be a break with our traditions and values as a nation, and wants to make sure that any type of authorization coming from congress, complies with our Constitution, our rules of war and any applicable laws.”
Above quote from This ABC News article
Basically, what I gather is that he signed the law in because of the benefits, HOWEVER is pinky promising not to actually use the other bad objectionable stuff. Awesome.
From page 266, "SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1021 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant
to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or
carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the
United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war
has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no
transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section
shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section
1028.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may
waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits
to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(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.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section 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."
I had to read this a few times, but it sounds as thought you may be right. But I still wonder why all of the news agencies are reporting that it does extend to Americans. Are they wrong? Is this just a specific loop hole? Why wouldn't Obama say outright, "THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO AMERICAN CITIZENS!" and dispel the outrage? I'm confused.
I don't know.
“The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the“requirement” of military detention,” Greenwald writes. “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."
From:the Forbes article
So, basically... Note the word requirement in 1022. They still have the power to do so if they wish, but it is not mandatory. I also didn't realize that this law made it MANDATORY to detain non-US citizens. Scary.
This is why reading this sort of stuff makes me want to bash my head against a desk. That ONE WORD technically makes the rest of the sentence null.
If it does authorize indefinite detention of US citizens without trial, wouldn't a constitutional amendment be required to allow that? What about the Bill of Rights?
Hey, where's SwingIsYellow, and all his squawking about civil rights? Let's sic him on Congress! Hey, Swing, "you're either for civil rights or you aren't", right?
Where are those feisty characters when you need them?
But we're not sure it does authorize detention of American citizens without trial. My reading of it said it didn't. Is there a lawyer in the house?
@LittleMighty This is what scares me too. Like, should I go burn all of the cds from my rebellious teen years when I listened to anarchist punk like Anti-Flag? Is it okay to even BE an anarchist (I'm not, mind you) in America anymore? Would that make you a terrorist?
@Mountains I know, I kept thinking about that whole water-boarding thing... We always said we wouldn't engage in torture as well, and then, what do ya know? Is this whole debacle going to end up like that too? Where we say one thing and do differently...
And FYI, you personally could not be targeted under the Patriot Act
No flames, Telly, just "enthusiastic" discussion.
Don't hold back, Mts., tell us how you feel.
Oh, you mean my reference to covert "regime change"? That's been documented by journalists. Freedom of Information Act. Read the book "Bitter Fruit", full of documentation about the coup in Guatemala engineered by the US gov't.
You embarrass me as well Mountains... Your so far left you can't even see middle, and so anti American I'm ashamed that you carry a US passport
The thing is, the US isn't good enough at the behind-the-scenes intelligence that would help head off events like 9/11 before they happen. France caught a terrorist getting on an Air France plane in Paris a few years before 9/11, and it was because they really have a good intelligence service. I read they made their files available to us immediately after 9/11. But we, on the other hand, had difficulties with internal communications in our intel svcs., where that one woman tried to report something, but her supervisor didn't pass it on, or something. Was that the Valerie Plame incident, I don't remember now.
Plus, we've been so complacent over here, on our side of the pond. Feeling kind of protected--we've never been invaded. And when Clinton raised the issue of terrorism, saying we need to prepare, get our act together, get our intel together, no one knew what he was talking about. Meanwhile, France has been dealing with it for decades.
The hardest part about working in the Intel business is that you can't publicly tell the stories of success, but you have to take the full heat for any failures.
Oh well, it's all a big mess. In the end, it may not make any difference. It's all a big corporatocracy anyway, all they do is play a shell game with different polit. parties in the White House. Hey, listen to me, I'm beginning to sound dejected, like Mountains. But look at us as a nation--we're squabbling over stupid stuff like religion, when we should be revamping health care and creating jobs. It's pathetic. I'm not sure I have the energy to be outraged right now.
Please don't presume to act on my behalf and then act holier than thou about doing it. Especially when the actions are at best shady, and in reality, often illegal and unconstitutional. I don't need your help, thanks.
And if being skeptical and questioning things that are done allegedly on my behalf, regardless of how illegal or unconstitutional they are makes me "anti-American" (define please...), then consider me anti-American. As far as I'm aware (and please correct me if I'm wrong), this country was founded and prospered *because* people bucked the system and questioned 'why?'. I'm not a sheep. I don't believe everything that's forced down my throat like many people in this country. If I'm so far left I can't see the center that's because I've lived through a whole lot of things in this country that made me so. If it weren't for people who question the status quo, we'd be in a lot more of a mess than we're in - which is a truly frightening thought.
@seeker242 - I didn't vote for Bush and Cheney, and in fact, there is a very good argument that they were never legally elected in the first place. Nobody ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American electorate. We (the big "we") have a long track record of electing people whose views and policies are diametrically opposed to our best interests simply because we're gullible enough to be sucked in by jingoistic sound bites and unashamed pandering to our baser instincts of greed and fear, and more recently, so-called "religion".