Posted on 12/12/2011 8:53:46 PM PST by Nachum
Lawmakers reached an agreement Monday on the $662 billion Defense authorization bill they believe will satisfy White House demands to avoid a veto over the detention of terror suspects.
House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders changed the bill to add a provision saying that FBI and other law enforcement’s national security authority would not be affected by provisions mandating military custody of terror suspects.
A White House veto threat has been hanging over the Pentagon policy bill for the past month, but House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders said Monday the new language would address the Obama administration’s biggest concerns with the mandatory military detention of terror suspects.
The clause is similar to the one added to the Senate bill that addressed concerns among Senate Democrats about U.S. citizens being detained indefinitely without changing the bill’s core language.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
ping
So how does the amended bill read now? The earlier version was convoluted enough that it could be read to say that either citizens weren’t *required* to be held in military custody, but could be at discretion of whoever, or that citizens weren’t required to be held in *military* custody i.e. they would be held in ordinary prison. I don’t recall that there was much support for the idea that citizens were to be fully excluded from the bill (otherwise the provision would say something to the effect that the overall bill “does not extend to US citizens within the United States” etc).
All of which is moot, since there very likely is a provision in some other bill that, combined with this one and various others, would still allow for the imprisonment without due process for any US citizen. There’s nothing that changes the implication that the “battlefield” for the war on terror now extends to the US.
I’m lost. What the heck is this?
I wasn't worried about how Fed LEAs would be affected. This is clear as mud to me. Can they hold citizens without due process or not?
It is a threat to 'due process'.
All I want for Christmas is for congress to find it’s juevos and VETO this mal- administration by thugery and beguilement.
So how does the amended bill read now? The earlier version was convoluted enough that it could be read to say that either citizens weren’t *required* to be held in military custody, but could be at discretion of whoever, or that citizens weren’t required to be held in *military* custody i.e. they would be held in ordinary prison. I don’t recall that there was much support for the idea that citizens were to be fully excluded from the bill (otherwise the provision would say something to the effect that the overall bill “does not extend to US citizens within the United States” etc).
So how does the amended bill read now? The earlier version was convoluted enough that it could be read to say that either citizens weren’t *required* to be held in military custody, but could be at discretion of whoever, or that citizens weren’t required to be held in *military* custody i.e. they would be held in ordinary prison. I don’t recall that there was much support for the idea that citizens were to be fully excluded from the bill (otherwise the provision would say something to the effect that the overall bill “does not extend to US citizens within the United States” etc).
They way I read this, it is awful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.