The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[NDAA] The end of liberty.
Indica1
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
A bill called the National Defense Authourization Act just passed through the Senate 93 to 7.
The NDAA will
1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;
(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and
(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.
It's the the hands of the president now. He threatened to veto it before it passed. For some reason this doesn't give me much hope.
The NDAA will
1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;
(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and
(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.
It's the the hands of the president now. He threatened to veto it before it passed. For some reason this doesn't give me much hope.
If the president had any real power, he'd be able to live wherever the fuck he wanted.
Indica1 on
0
Posts
The gold standard of Presidential power is that it's supposed to be something you're equally okay with someone you love and someone you hate having. Otherwise thar be problems here.
...This is the Mark Udall amendment, which was (as far as I'm aware) stripped from the NDAA.
The NDAA is not a 'new' bill. It's a law that is revised every year, mandating what the U.S. military can / cannot do.
EDIT: Before going bonkers over a bill like this one, just bear in mind that your military always has the de-facto ability to seize control from the civilian authority. No bill can stop a column of M1 tanks from rolling into NYC and shooting up the place if that's what the Pentagon decides to do.
The fascist element in your country is crazy, but not that crazy.
If the president had any real power, he'd be able to live wherever the fuck he wanted.
The House version of NDAA passed 322-96 (77%). With the Senate voting 93-7, it doesn't really matter whether Obama vetoes or not. Both chambers are easily past the veto-proof threshold.
I'm guessing all we can hope for is Obama vetoes, is overridden, and then issues Executive Orders that will prohibit any of the worst provisions from actually being implemented.
The Udall amendment was sponsered by one of the Dems (I forget who) in an attempt to remove this authorization. It being stripped means that this bill is every bit as scary as OP is suggesting.
I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of politics and how gov't functions is somewhere between non-existent and abysmal, but would a veto really help in this case? If it passed 93 to 7, couldn't Congress just override that veto?
Yeah, they only need 2/3 to override a veto.
I guess he could theoretically pocket veto it if Congress goes out of session soon, but with this kind of overwhelming support I doubt that would do much of anything.
Also, the proposed Udall Amendment, that would set a specifc limits on how long someone can be considered a terrorist, has never been in there and still isn't, so nothing new there either. Yeah, it was proposed as a "you can detain them forever!" amendment, but with the intent of debating whether or not the law specifically allows that or not with the hopes of setting some limits. Again, we have habeas corpus still, and that isn't changed. So, you have judicial review on how long they can be detained whenever you need it, except for non-citizens in combat zones, which has been the case forever always.
That's not very reassuring. We had Habeas Corpus when this
happened too.
If the government is allowed to detain american citizens without trial than what good is habeas corpus?
If the president had any real power, he'd be able to live wherever the fuck he wanted.
It's good because it means there is still per-case judicial review over whether or not they can continue to be held without trial.
Perhaps you can please explain to me, how would a normal attempt at military detention of a citizen occur without NDAA and how it would occur with NDAA? What are the salient differences in the process? Perhaps it's just a misunderstanding but "indefinite detention without trial or charges" does not in my mind imply any judicial review. How would this occur and how are the two processes different?
It really isn't the END OF LIBERTY, but the potential for abuse is pretty massive. NDAA is a thing that gets passed every year and it also includes many other things that have to happen which is why it was voted in in such a wide margin.
First of all, the current debate is over the NDAA that passed in 2001. What passed recently, with respect to this debate, is the same thing that has passed for 10 years.
But the basic thing going on is that ever since 9/11 we've totally mucked up the legal logic concerning enemy combatants (i.e., people we're at war with), and U.S. citizens. You can be one or the other or both or neither, but there are like 50 different laws and SCOTUS decisions about what that means with respect to detention, interrogation, and trial. And no, this mucking around has not been in one direction. Either way, it's left a confusing mess that many feel needs to be cleaned up. They aren't necessarily wrong.
I tried to type a big long response covering every relevant legal action from the 40s to today, but I ran out of time. The bottom line is that we have a law that specifically prevents something like the Japanese detentions. But Supreme Court cases from the 40s through the 2000s affirm that citizens can be treated as enemies if they aid the enemy, and that Al-qaeda and even terrorism in general are "enemies" in the way Nazis once were. That means you don't ahve to read them their rights or give them their phone call. But the military is not required by law to detain and question suspicious citizens as if they were an enemy. They can, according to their own procedures, but they aren't required to. (They're required to do so for foreign combatants, because that's part of the military's job under the NDAA). And, neither can they under any circumstances put a citizen on trial in a military tribunal.
However, anyone detained while legally on U.S. soil (like citizens), or any citizen detained abroad, still has habeas corpus rights. You can still demand a judicial review of why you are being held. That can only be suspended under martial law I think.
And wiki's backup: ^ Hodge, Nathan. "Congress (Finally) Passes Defense-Policy Bill." WSJ, 22 December 2010.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 is under revision by the United States Senate. Debate over and a vote rejecting an amendment to the Act drafted by U.S. Senator Mark Udall has left open the possibility of indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, and as such has received attention by the American Civil Liberties Union and media sources.[1][2][3] The Udall amendment proscribing the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens was rejected by a vote of 38-60.[4]
And wiki's backup:
^ Khaki, Ategah, "Senate Rejects Amendment Banning Indefinite Detention," ACLU Blog of Rights, 29 November 2011: [1].
^ Savage, Charlie, "Senate Declines to Clarify Rights of American Qaeda Suspects Arrested in U.S.," The New York Times, 1 December 2001:[2].
^ Carter, Tom "US Senators back law authorizing indefinite military detention without trial or charge," World Socialist Web Site, 2 December 2011: [3].
^ U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress - 1st Session: [4].
And on the legacy of the internment of Japanese Americans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans#Legal_legacy
It's important to take civil liberty infringements seriously, but also not to Glenn Beck it.
Inserted into the bill:
Doesn't this neuter the most odious aspects of it?
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
It does indeed.
Okay, but here's the real clincher, we'd never have military deployed domestically except in cases of mass civil unrest which is I believe when Northcom is authorized to operate on U.S. soil, would that not qualify for martial law? What I'm getting at, is I want to try and figure out what the potential checks and balances are that would prevent the following from occuring: Occupy grows bigger, organizes massive strikes, strikes cause business pressure but congress refuses to act, bank runs occur because of the financial damage. Martial Law is declared and Northcom is deployed under "Mass Civil unrest" which is determined by the size of the protestors, who aside from essential dockworkers are then rounded up during said martial law.
I know that's not something that would happen anytime soon but I always think it's good to ask yourself "What would a mostly evil government do with our current system of laws and what stops them from being evil in that scenario?" Because after all, the rule of law is supposed to restrain citizen and tyrant alike pretty equally. So understanding better what current defenses we have against that hypothetical allows me to better understand whether or not the NDAA amendments are overall good, neutral, or a potential problem down the line.
I think we've got a decent (not perfect) amount of coverage against that sort of thing. From what I've read they've taken out the part where US Citizens can be sequestered and such, so problem solved in my mind.
It was a silly amendment, anyway.
Also, our greatest protection is our country's oft hyperbolized love of suing the shit out of people.
So, just a thought, but once I'm detained indefinitely as a U.S. Citizen, what is it that allows me to have Habeus Corpus except for the good will of the jailers? I mean really, what's stopping them from just squelching me in prison except for the good will of their hearts? How do I guarantee my case is reviewed if nobody even has to be told I was detained indefinitely or why?
I'm not against questioning these kinds of laws, but I think the proper protections are built in. I think calling it the end of liberty is a bit of a stretch.
If the economy were to get any worse? You can sure bet he'd need to start interning occupy.
Essentially, then, the Feinstein amendment was just there because most of the Senators already thought that the law allows for indefinite detention of US citizens, so they didn't give a shit.
He doesn't really explain why "this is not the case" or the "suspect sections," so it all comes out a bit confusing. Thoughts?
Also came upon this recent piece (http://occupywallst.org/forum/thoughts-on-congress-and-the-senate-passing-laws-t/)
Hoping you'll trust, yeah. Like I said, I was going to list a ton of legal actions and sources, but I ran out of time. This isn't WP and I don't always [cite]. You can find the info pretty easily. I might even have some of it wrong. Here's the gist in a different light:
Ever since WWII (and theoretically even before that), citizens aiding foreign enemies are considered foreign enemies. That's from numerous SCOTUS decisions. Specifically, they can be detained and interrogated by the military. Originally they could be tried by a military tribunal, too, but a later decision specfied only detention and interrogation, never military trials for citizens.
Since the 60s, when it was clear that we were a dominant super-power on this planet, we've accepted that we are permanently at war and that our military is this planet's police force. So, instead of Congress having to declare war in order to have a war, we just have the NDAA that gets signed every year. It funds ongoing military action, and spells out what the general purpose and responsibilities of the military. No more of the messy business of needing Congress to vote to go to war. Now the President only needs approval of funding, and Congress has virtually no choice but to always authorize it.
The NDAA has a couple sections of interest here. One basically says, "when you come across an enemy, you detain him for as long as you see fit, and you interrogate him if it might help." Now, keep in mind, this is a statement about what the military's job is. It isn't a statement about rights or freedoms or anything. It's basically saying, "we give you money, and you have to use it to shoot enemies and detain enemies and stuff."
The next section says, "but that other section doesn't apply to citizens."
That's part of where it gets tricky, and that's actually been a tricky bit since even before 9/11, going back to the original NDAA. The problem is that it's actually not real clear what those two sections mean together. The first section is just listing their duties, and says, "you must detain an enemy if you can." The next one says, "don't include citizens," which together might mean, "you can't detain citizens."
Or, IMO, it means, "you aren't required as part of your responsibilities to detain citizens..." I mean, like I said, SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed that citizens can be detained as enemies, and the part about "not applying to citizens" only specifically applies to a statement about what the military "must" do. So, what it boils down to is that it is up to the Executive Branch to determine if a citizen is an enemy, and up to them to decide whether or not they need to detain him as such, or just turn him over to the police. They "can" detain an enemy citizen (SCOTUS), but aren't "required" to (NDAA).
It wasn't an issue much before 9/11. We had specific SCOTUS cases dealing with domestic Nazi collaboration that made it clear for WWII. And we didn't really have any other domestic enemy combatants after that, so it didn't come up. We had U.S. citizens who became enemy combatants in foreign military arenas, but no one was questioning whether or not that was the domain of the military. We also had that nasty detention of Asian-Americans, but a specific law was passed that barred the military from detaining domestic citizens without an act of Congress authorizing it. As if it wasn't clear already, that law made it clear that you can't detain someone unless they are, for example, an enemy combatant as described in the NDAA. The military can't just fear their slanty eyes and detain them because of it.
9/11 brought the issue back to the forefront. The 2002 NDAA added "Al-Qaeda" as a specific group to be considered enemy combatants. Although this still left the whole "required to vs. able to" issue unresolved, it nevertheless more directly ordered the military to have procedures which would consider any domestic citizen identified with Al-Qaeda to thus be someone who should be detained and interrogated by the military. In 2004, another SCOTUS case broadened this "Al-Qaeda" designation to include any "terrorist." Again, the issue hasn't really changed, it's just that now it seems that the charge to the military has gotten suspiciously broad regarding domestic citizens.
So there was an attempt to add to the 2012 NDAA a statement that makes the "citizen" exception more clear: "the military can't detain a domestic citizen indefinitely." While it's true that some clarification might be in order, it isn't clear that this statement is the way to go about. For one, the practical effect of it could be odd - if a citizen went to the Middle East to train to be a terrorist, then the military could pick him up in the Middle East and treat him as they normally would... but if he's able to make it back over the fence into the U.S. first, which is when he'd theoretically be most dangerous, he then suddenly gains nebulous new protections from military action against him. That doesn't seem the right course of action. But secondly, citizens always have had habeus corpus rights and still do. You can't hold a citizen indefinitely without judicial review. Not even under military procedures against enemy combatants. So again, some clarification might be in order, but the proposed statement seems to be politically charged words that would have no practical effect.
As for, "what if no one knows you're being held," well, that is an issue no matter what laws are in place. If the military decides to hold someone in secret and the person doesn't know to request a review of his detention and no one else notices he's gone... I don't know. I guess that could happen. But by definition, no one would ever know, so I don't know what to say about it.
The bottom line is that citizens can be held and interrogated as enemy combatants, that has always been true and isn't likely to change. But our perceptions of enemy combatants are no longer just organized, foreign militaries invading our shores, or intelligence-gathering KGB spies among us. They now potentially include any citizen who is angry at his government and wants to blow stuff up. This perception brings to light the existing imperfections in how we specify the procedural lines between criminals and enemies, and makes those imperfections potentially more important to address. But the recent NDAA that passed was never a matter of the government trying to slip a military state past us while we weren't paying attention, like the media tried to portray it. Someone tried to improve an arguably confusing and important procedural issue, failed to suggest anything that would actually improve it, and so nothing changed. In his defense, he did formally state that he did not want his language passed as is, but rather wanted a whole council set up to review the entire mess and set it straight, which I agree is in order. But I don't think it's a serious or pressing matter of our freedoms at stake either way.
At this point, it just looks like this is all going to be something that the courts will settle. I guess that's what they were counting on, though.
I still think this is troubling, because even if the sections are in a sort of legal gray area, the intent is clear:
That's just unbelievable, child-like thinking coming from a Senator. I don't understand why these sections were even necessary if they ultimately don't change anything, as is being claimed, unless they're attempts to deny the right to trial, like Graham is fantasizing right there. It all seems to come down to them betting that the courts will rule in their favor if it's challenged.
It passed the Senate 93-7. What's the point?
So in short, the only thing stopping my worst case scenario is that the Government doesn't yet have a way to explain "The wealthy threatened to crash the world economy if we didn't make every American debt slaves!" that would go over well with the entire supreme court?
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
This is; however, the perfect symbol of why being in a constant state of war against "terror" is a dumb fucking idea.
The military is banned from getting involved inside the US through posse comitatus, like Dr. Mario Kart said. I think it was back in Andrew that the National Guard couldn't stop looters because they had no real authority or something. Of course that was twenty some odd years ago.
No, it's because a state of perpetual war makes people crazy and paranoid, and welcome to McCarthy 2 or 3.0 or whatever.
It's very dangerous small line in the bill and I have no doubt that a court would strike it down, but at the end of the day the legal rights of American citizens are no different now than they were before.