New Hampshire Moves Toward Nullifying NDAA

1021 of the 2012 law allows unlimited detention of American citizens without due process or recourse to an attorney.

The body of the bill says nothing supersedes habeas corpus.

So which part is correct?

I don’t know where these two things are in the 2014 version. I would have to look it up. I know they are still there.

Do you trust the administration to enforce the part of the act that we like over the part of the bill we don’t like?

Why would they keep passing and signing it with that amendment in there if they don’t intend to use it, either in actuality or as a chilling threat? It needs to be gone.

“1021 of the 2012 law allows unlimited detention of American citizens without due process or recourse to an attorney.
The body of the bill says nothing supersedes habeas corpus.
So which part is correct?”

I looked into this, actually reading the Acts.

This is what I found (and there is a Section in FY12 NDAA that does indeed prohibit unlimited detention of American citizens.

Here is what I found:

I looked in the FY11 NDAA and didn’t find anything.

Looking in the FY2012 NDAA, I found an interesting Section (Title X General Provisions). It is in this section we find what is causing the reactions we are observing.

Subsection D-Counterterrorism, para C (1), pg 1562 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ81/pdf/PLAW-112publ81.pdf)

“(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

And. . .

“(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”

Sounds like you are correct, but maybe not. . .

It can’t be more clear (no misunderstanding), in this same section, addressing detentions, it clearly and unambiguously states:

“(e) AUTHORITIES.—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.”

As you can see, the perception that American citizens can be held indefinitely is not a fact.

Simple. No confusion. As I said before, we should be wary of our own government BUT we must also be wary of others that try to manipulate and mislead us for their own ends, to use our distrust of government to their own ends—whatever they might be.

The problem is nobody is reading para (e), the section that exempts US citizens (or others living in the US), from para c(1). Too many people are just reacting and not thinking. Simply put, someone serves nonsense and because the nonsense fits their preconceived notions and biases, they eat the whole pile without once checking for themselves. I bet over 99% of those reacting to the NDAA, a) don’t know what the NDAA actually is, and b) never read it for themselves.

The Section reads:
Subsection D – Counterterrorism
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) 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, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—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.

Cheers. . .

“In December 2011, President Obama signed the 2012 NDAA, codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

This is currently posted on the ACLU website.

Yes. I understand, and appreciate the reference to what the ACLU says.

Absent an actual reference to the legislation, who are you going to believe, what you are being told by the ACLU or what you can actually read/see for yourself.

I’ve provided a link to the actual legislation. I respectfully ask if you can identify where the US government is allowed to snatch Americans off the streets of America and hold them indefinitely.

Seriously. Please do.

There is simply no “there” there, and I’ve read the legislation, and quoted the relevant portions of the Act, and the Act is quite clear—no indefinite detentions of US citizens.

I think the ACLU and others such as them, are against the indefinite detention of foreigners. They simply don’t like the idea of holding POWs until the war is over.

The hypothesize the ACLU, the defenders of American-haters, has an agenda at play. Much like the homosexual community convincing the heterosexual community they are just as likely to contract HIV/AIDS, the ACLU is doing the exact same thing reference indefinite detention. If I can convince Average Joe American that he can be snatched off the street and held forever, then I generate unwarranted support.

Unless I can be directed to contrary legislation stating otherwise, this indefinite detention thing is misleading hype. No one thus far has been able to cite and quote anything in the law that proves the allegation that Americans can be snatched off the streets and held indefinitely.

There simply is no legislation saying so. So, what are you going to do? Read the legislation and think for yourself, or are you going to believe what you are TOLD to feel about the subject.

I thank you for the civil tone during this exchange. Refreshing, and if you come across legislation proving this indefinite detention of American citizens, please share.

While the hype fits preconceived notions of potential abuse, there are no such authorizations.

Oh, and yes, the ACLU is referencing indefinite detention but artfully not saying it applies to US citizens.

Cheers.