After what must have been an uproarious New Year’s Eve for GOP Senate hopeful Marc Scaringi, he posted a note on his website claiming that
New Year’s Eve, was a sad day for our civil liberties and our Constitution. President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act thereby eviscerating the Rule of Law and our Constitution by making the indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial the law of the land… This new law is a direct assault on the civil liberties of every American and on the Constitution of the United States.
We would be just as outraged as Mr. Scaringi is, if this was true. Fortunately, it isn’t.
The National Defense Authorization Act does no such thing, and this would be clear to Mr. Scaringi if he had, in fact, read the applicable sections. But before delving into the NDAA itself, it is useful to note that the relevant precedent was already established in 2004.
President Bush claimed detention authority based on the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The first test of this authority involved a captured militant, Yaser Hamdi, who was captured in Afghanistan. Hamdi claimed U.S. citizenship because he had been born in Louisiana. Following a habeas trial, the Supreme Court held that “(i) the government’s authority to detain under the AUMF at least included armed members of the Taliban captured in Afghanistan (at least so long as fighting continued there), (ii) citizenship was no bar to detention in that circumstance, and (iii) citizenship did, however, entitle a detainee to a fair opportunity to contest the factual claims asserted by the government in support of detention.”
Now, on to the NDAA itself. Mr. Scaringi could argue his point if he was reading the bill without having read any of the amendments. Fortunately for us (and unfortunately for Mr. Scaringi’s thesis), Senator Dianne Feinstein offered an amendment stating that the NDAA should not be taken to address the detention of U.S. citizens in either direction. In fact, the amendment hands the question over to the courts to decide, maintaining the status quo.
Because the NDAA is agnostic about the detention of U.S. citizens, it is clear that if Marc Scaringi wants to claim that President Obama signed away our Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights, then he must at least admit that it was actually President Bush who did the deed years ago.
Whether it was President Bush or President Obama who did the deed..it's still wrong
Before, it was just a policy. Obama enshrined it into law.
Actually Marc is correct. The NDAA does allow indefinite detention of Americans so long as they are "suspected" of terrorist ties to al queda. It is the author, Jake, who did not read the NDAA . No trial, no innocent until proven guilty, no nothing. Guantanamo bay for any American that the government wants to detain, all they have to due is accuse u of terrorism. It does not matter if they have evidence for these accusations or not because there will be no trial. The NDAA says no American shall be detained but then goes on to say "except for" which immediately negates the first part.
Id like to also say that the government has already destroyed these rights anyways. This act just puts it on paper. Obama already murdered American citizen Anwar and his 16 year old son without trial a couple months back.
I was briefly (and may still be) on Pennsylvania's terror watch list, apparently for the crime of running my pinko, commie, tree-hugging mouth too much, and terrorizing the pollies by indiscriminately using words of more than one syllable. The "Patriot Act" makes me nervous. The NDAA makes me suspicious.
The Senate adopted a compromise amendment, based upon a proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein, which preserves current law concerning U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens detained within the United States. While Senator Feinstein says current law does not allow the indefinite detention of American citizens, the Obama Administration, Senators John McCain and Carl Levin, the ACLU, Amnesty International and many other Constitutional and Civil Rights attorneys maintain that it does. These are not partisan Republicans looking to smear the President, but persons deeply concerned about this Bill and the effect on our civil rights.
In fact, The Obama administration specifically requested the Armed Services Committee (who drafted the Bill) take out language which would have made it clear that the detention provision did not apply to US citizens. This was brought to light by Senator Carl Levin(D) during debate on the Senate floor.
This rush to absolve the President of his action in signing NDAA by claiming that it really isn't anything to worry about or that the President didn't want to sign it is false. Jake Sternberger, as President of the Dickinson College Democrats, it's important for you to be honest in both your praise and criticism of Democratic politicians. They can't get a pass on actions because they are on 'your team.' Wrong is wrong and misleading people about this Bill and what it means because you are shilling for a political party is also wrong.
I think it useful to note that the relevant section on detention only applies to
(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.
This is NO DIFFERENT than the authority that the administration already claims under the 2001 AUMF. The Authority they already claim is:
"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."
If you compare the two, it is clear that the NDAA does not expand Executive detention authority.
It's the "without charge or trial" part that worries me, regardless of whoever is the detainee.
Jake, the law is much broader in scope than you claim, and you know that. This new law specifically codifies a permissible executive action that was previously only a de facto power. Stop defending the indefensible actions of a President you helped elect and now, hopefully, regret putting in office. You can blame Obama, Bush, whomever – I don't care. It is morally and fundamentally wrong and will, I believe, eventually be declared unconsitutional.
The issue right now is the interpretation of the word "requirement" in HR1540 Title X Subtitle D Sec.1022(b) found here:
http://www­.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf#page=266
Two legal schools of thought currently exist on the subject.
For the position that US Citizen ARE subject to possible detention, quoting Constitutional and civil rights litigator Glenn Greenwald:
http://www­.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/#comments
For the position that US citizens are EXEMPT from the detention provisions, Benjamin Wittes & Robert Chesney at the Brookings Institute state here:
http://www­.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
Can't believe people can't see through this obvious government propaganda
Pingback: Obama’s Signing of NDAA is a Challange to My Constitution | The Pagan Princesses