Americans face Guantánamo detention after Obama climbdown

The Guardian (UK) ^ | December 15th, 2011 | Chris McGreal

[AnAmericanAbroad]

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end".

The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.

The legislation's supporters in Congress say it simply codifies existing practice, such as the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists at Guantánamo Bay. But the law's critics describe it as a draconian piece of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to include US citizens arrested in their own country.

[Buckeye McFrog]

I strongly suspect that the SCOTUS will not go along with this

[Texas resident]

You just hit on the key part of this.

Who gets to label a person a terrorist.

Regardless of the intent or language of the bill, we have a lawless administration who will use the full force of the federal government against American citizens for political purposes. This would be very dangerous under a president who is loyal to this country. Under baraq, watch out.

[raygunfan]

Im thinking folks are getting all upset over nothing if the link provided http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=23d194d7-78c9-4c57-b2d9-31bc3bb7daeb

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
, means anything of what is plainly says.

[Jane Long]

Any links to roll call of votes...not that there’s a bit of difference between the “parties”?

[opentalk]

There was specific language which excluded US citizens, Obama asked it to be removed and it was.

This bill is sponsored by McCain and Levin with Graham cheer-leading.

The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens on U.S. Soil

House passed last night, Senate could vote today, Obama will sign it and go to Hawaii.

[AnAmericanAbroad]

Here’s the excerpt from the bill as passed.

Section 1032 (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.

My quibble with this is: “The REQUIREMENT”......while I admit it’s true that the POTUS is not REQUIRED to detain a US citizen in military custody, he (or she) may CHOOSE to do so. I don’t like that.
Furthermore, the language simply states, ....”shall not extend to US citizens.” That’s not an explicit prohibition. In other words, I find it a bit slippery, and “open to emanations and penumbras” if you will.

If I were writing it, I would’ve written, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section is explicitly prohibited toward those who are citizens of the United States”, with similar language for permanent resident aliens. To me, that’s very much an explicit exemption.

IMHO, there’s wiggle-room. And a smart lawyer (and D.C. is full of them) can twist that wiggle-room into a nightmare.

Just my personal view. Here’s a link to the entire bill for those who feel up to the daunting task of reading it: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/html/BILLS-112s1867es.htm

[ScottfromNJ]

From Link:

“Explicitly exempts U.S. citizens from the requirement”

Be careful of the wording here. “exempts U.S. citizens from the requirement” doesn’t mean they can’t do it, it just means they’re not required to.

Very sneaky and deceitful.

[listenhillary]

Includes transcript.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428

[Tilted Irish Kilt]

“This law was (drafted by lobbyists who ghost) wrote the bill for Republicans.
This bill was co-sponsored by Republicans.
This bill was voted out of committees controlled by Republicans.
This bill passed both houses with overwhelming Republican support.
The Republic is dead.”

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews, I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Martin Niemöller (Protestant Minister who survived the Nazi concentration camps)

[opentalk]

From link

...Indeed, Amash accuses lawmakers of attempting to intentionally mislead the American people by writing a bill which appears at first glance to exclude U.S. citizens, when it actually includes us:

Pres. Obama and many Members of Congress believe the President ALREADY has the authority the bill grants him. Legally, of course, he does not. This language was inserted to keep proponents and opponents of the bill appeased, while permitting the President to assert that the improper power he has claimed all along is now in statute. ***

* They will say that American citizens are specifically exempted under the following language in Sec. 1032: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” Don’t be fooled. All this says is that the President is not REQUIRED to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial. It still PERMITS him to do so.

[AnAmericanAbroad]

Bingo.

That’s the problem. The POTUS is not REQUIRED to do so, but may CHOOSE to do so.

[redgolum]

Have shirt tail relations out where you are. A few have invited us to visit.

If they have jobs for chemical engineers, we may do that some day.

[opentalk]

Senator Levin: It was Obama who required Indefinite Detainment Bill INCLUDE U.S. Citizens

From Senator Levin, there was language in the bill to exempt citizens. Obama asked for it to be removed, and they did.

[AnAmericanAbroad]

And you would be in luck. At www.jobs.cz/en/ I saw quite a few postings for chemical engineers.

It’s not too bad here.

At least we’re not living under “martial law lite”.

Seriously......the America I grew up in is dead. I still remember the bicentennial in ‘76 very well. With all the changes, that may as well have been a thousand years ago.

Sad.

[Roninf5-1]

Why is voting for a bill that takes away your rights to a fair trial, WHY THE HELL IS THAT NOT TREASON??????

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
-Ovid

[Lucky9teen]

Some interesting comments over at DU....

MadHound (29,697 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail

3. What's truly sad is that there will be those who support this measure simply because Obama signed it

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

---

Response to MadHound (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:58 PM

Aerows (5,970 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail

7. They already are

They are defending it vigorously, forgetting that Obama isn't always going to be president. All we need is one nutty Republican with this power and we could, as a people, be in a world of hurt. Oppressive policies don't get better over time - bad policy requires that something horrible happens before it gets changed.

This leaves the door open for some truly horrible consequences for the American people. Someone in a position of authority decides they don't like you and your message? All they have to do is say you are a terrorist. You get no trial, nobody examines the evidence, you are just locked up. Anyone that thinks this couldn't be used as a direct tool to oppress the American people and quell all dissent hasn't read much history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

---

Response to Aerows (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:06 PM

MisterP (11,218 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail

15. in fact, if you're against it, you're a brat who can't appreciate the wonder he did by getting a

cosmetic wording change

--which is an attitude that reveals why they're for the bill

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

---

Response to Aerows (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:36 AM

MadrasT (2,605 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail

44. If this happened during Bush/Cheney

...can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would have gone on here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

---

Response to MadHound (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:59 PM

WillyT (36,188 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail

9. I Thought Obama Threatened To Veto It ???

But what I DO know... is that it passed the Senate 93 to 7...

Bipartisan Patriotism, in the minority:

Sen. Thomas Coburn (R, OK)
Sen. Thomas Harkin (D, IA)
Sen. Mike Lee (R, UT)
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D, OR)
Sen. Rand Paul (R, KY)
Sen. Bernard Sanders (I, VT)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D, OR)

Bipartisan Cowardice, in the majority:

Link: http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/s/218?du

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

---

Response to WillyT (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:02 PM

Aerows (5,970 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail

12. It should really tell people

something when people who are at vastly different ends of the political scale vote against this. Bipartisan cowardice on the part of 93 members of the Senate is exactly right. 3 Dems, 3 Reps, and one 1 Ind. Apparently these are the 7 members of the Senate that have read history.

[rarestia]

LLS... I’m with you. I will not be chained. I will not be bound, gagged, and thrown in a gulag. America stands for something. I will die firing on those who would seek to imprison my friends, my family, and me. If that means knucklehead SWAT officers or Obama’s new civilian force, I will take the bullet.

I would rather die free than live in chains.

Treason has occurred. Obama and his minions have forsaken their oaths of office. The Senate has forsaken its oath. The Congress has forsaken its oath.

It is time for revolution.

[Liberty Valance]

bttt

[LibLieSlayer]

I wouldn't mention revolution... let them start it... give them nothing with which to condemn you... but be ready and be prepared and stay alert.

LLS

[rarestia]

They’ve made it plainly obvious that revolution isn’t going to start in any outrageous or obvious way, LLS. There won’t be a Fort Sumter moment this time. They’re surreptitiously taking the proverbial rug out from under us. The media controls the dialog.

A few hundred of us are rounded up in the middle of the night, the headlines the next day will be something to the effect: “Obama Administration detains 100 for terror links.”

No details will be necessary. People read the headlines. Fear mongering. Meanwhile, we’ll be sitting with Bubba.