[emax]

Except this is not really true, there is nothing govt can do under NDAA 2012 that it couldnt already do under the combined provisions of the Patriot Act and AUMF of 2001. It does not expand the scope and the provisions 1031, 1032 and 1033 do not give the govt new power to detain US authorities based on suspicion of terrorism. If you say so, than it suggests your understanding of existing law is not there. If this was passed before Bush, you know full well he would have signed it. I really hope that those who are in such hysterics over the notion that NDAA 2012 helps create a police state were at least somewhat against the Patriot Act and the AUMF 2001 and didnt just wholeheartedly cheer it on.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

Does the NDAA expand the government’s detention authority?
Nope. Under current law, the Obama administration claims the authority to detain:

persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces 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 hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces.

That claim of authority is based on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (“AUMF”) passed by Congress shortly after the September 11 attacks, as informed by the law of war. The Bush Administration previously claimed very similar authority, albeit invoking not just the AUMF but also the inherent power of the President under Article II of the Constitution. In any event, such claims have been subjected to judicial challenge repeatedly, most commonly in the context of the Guantanamo detainee habeas litigation. As we explain below, the courts have had a decidedly mixed reaction in the pair of cases involving persons captured within the United States, but as for persons captured abroad, they have largely endorsed the government’s position. The D.C. Circuit, in fact, has tentatively adopted a definition of the class detainable under the AUMF that is, if anything, broader than what the administration seeks. While the administration–and now Congress–would detain only on the basis of “substantial support,” the D.C. Circuit has articulated a standard which would permit detention of those who “purposefully and materially support” the enemy, even if not substantially.

In light of all this, a law that writes the administration’s successful litigating position into statute cannot reasonably be said to expand the government’s detention authority. In fact, to the extent that the new statutory language will preempt the arguably broader D.C. Circuit definition, it may actually narrow it–if only very slightly. So let’s compare the language of the administration’s claimed authority (quoted above) to the language of the NDAA:

(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.

They are almost verbatim the same. The NDAA is really a codification in statute of the existing authority the administration claims. It puts Congress’s stamp of approval behind that claim for the first time, and that’s no small thing. But it does not–notwithstanding the widespread belief to the contrary–expand it. Nobody who is not subject to detention today will become so when the NDAA goes into effect.

The one area in which the NDAA could theoretically be said to expand detention authority involves people held on the basis not of membership in an enemy group but mere support for one. As noted above, the government has long claimed this authority already, and the DC Circuit has in fact endorsed a slightly broader formulation. But so far, anyway, it has done so in dicta only–that is, not in any case where the fact pattern actually depended on the resolution of that issue. In theory, then, the circuit (or the Supreme Court) might at some point have concluded that support alone is insufficient to support a detention. The NDAA will ensure that this does not happen by making clear that independent support does count as a ground for detention (or at least it will do so as a matter of statutory interpretation; in theory, the door would remain open to some form of constitutional challenge, though it is difficult to see how that would work). So even as it marginally narrows the detainable class, the NDAA also tends to ensure that courts will not narrow the scope of that class further.

[Winstons Julia]

Thank you... but still I think it’s time to re-read “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.”

[Hawthorn]

>> Except this is not really true <<

Looks as if Rush has joined the tinfoil-hat gang. He ought to leave this kind of nutty stuff to Alex Jones and Michael Savage. Very sad to see what appears to be the decline into irrelevance of a once-great man.

[HiTech RedNeck]

So he don’t need no stupid law to do that. Then why pass this supposedly redundant turd upon the land?

[Michael Barnes]

Thing is pal, this administration will twist and contort ANYTHING to achieve it’s goal of killing off America. Remember, our own military has already been called “potential” terrorists by members of this administration not to mention the TEA Party.
We are not dealing with an administration with any amount of honor to actually follow the law; they’ll just make it up as they go to get AROUND the law.

[Yosemitest]

It IS true.

"You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept Communism outright.
But we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism
until you finally wake up and realize you already have communism.
We won’t have to fight you;
we’ll so weaken your economy
that you will fall like over ripe fruit into our hands. "


Nikita Kruschev, Former Soviet Premier

Read the original article again.

"One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens.
The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation.
That spin is facially ridiculous.
The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated.
The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights.
Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial,
the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.
The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military.
The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031,
which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial."

Now, let's make this REAL SIMPLE.

You're looking for a wavier THAT AIN"T THERE!!!
Text of Pages 426 thru page 432 of S. 1867.
Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
SEC. 1031. 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) 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.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this
section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of
subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(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 1031 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co
ordination 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 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise
described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.


(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the
Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if
the Secretary 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.

(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President
shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited
to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2)
and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not
require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with
regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to
be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the
time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply
when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the
United States are granted access to an individual
who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4)
may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third
country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody
or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

[Tribune7]

there is nothing govt can do under NDAA 2012 that it couldnt already do under the combined provisions of the Patriot Act and AUMF of 2001.

So why do they need it?

[Sprite518]

If there is “No Change” to current laws, then why is written in the bill?