Indefinite Detention of American Citizens

[PLC1]

Before:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now National Defense Authorization Act

potential applications of this provision, which essentially gives the executive branch unlimited powers to indefinitely detain terror suspects without trial.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Not enough of us have been paying the price.

 

[dogtowner]

anyone for this besides Levin Mccain and Graham ?

 

[PLC1]

anyone for this besides Levin Mccain and Graham ?

Yes.

With all senators voting, the roll call was 93 favoring passage and 7 opposing

Un be friggin levable. Why aren't Americans demonstrating in the streets? Doesn't anyone care?

 

[dogtowner]

Yes.



Un be friggin levable. Why aren't Americans demonstrating in the streets? Doesn't anyone care?

yeah. i wonder if this was an amendment or just written in ? does indeed leave a very wide door open and for no reason. I hate omnibus bills for this reason. far too much crazy stuff slides through.

 

[PLC1]

yeah. i wonder if this was an amendment or just written in ? does indeed leave a very wide door open and for no reason. I hate omnibus bills for this reason. far too much crazy stuff slides through.

yes it does. How else can you get a patently unconstitutional bill through Congress?

Or, do they even understand that it's unconstitutional?

9% approval rating. Too high.

 

[dogtowner]

yes it does. How else can you get a patently unconstitutional bill through Congress?

Or, do they even understand that it's unconstitutional?

9% approval rating. Too high.

do they even care ? sure seems not. I guess we can hope the house does.

yeah right...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

who would have guessed I would side with Rand Paul and McCain would look like a D**** talking about the issue with typical Neocon language...If your not for this your for terrorist killing americans..

Lets Brand Him a Terrorsit throw away the key, no trial...and then ask how he feels..after all the goverment should be trusted to have that kind of power...just to say you did something and then your guilty and never to be heard from again...Thank you 2 party idiot system.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

yes it does. How else can you get a patently unconstitutional bill through Congress?

Or, do they even understand that it's unconstitutional?

9% approval rating. Too high.

did you see how much debate was done on it? it was like less then a hour on the floor with them talking about how they could go faster...

 

[PLC1]

There was hardly any debate in the Senate at all before 93% of them voted to take away a basic Constitutional right. Disgusting and frightening. On the other hand, Obama has promised to veto this piece of cra... I mean legislation. Of course, the ranters will spin it that he vetoed the military and left the country vulnerable, but it really means that he is against giving the government the power to detain citizens indefinitely without trial.

 

[BigRob]

This thread of course peaked my interest -- so I did a little research. From what I read, everyone seems to be pointing to two sections the legislation as evidence that this legislation now allows US Citizens to be detained indefinitely without trail. Those sections are Section 1031 and Section 1032.

So -- unlike so many who seem to be reporting on this story -- I read those section of the legislation.

Section 1031 states:
"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."

Section 1032 states:
"UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

Additionally, those sections spell out what one must have done to fall under these categories -- and it is basically to take up arms against the United States, aid terror groups etc. It seems a stretch to assume allowing American citizens who openly commit treason to be detained under the laws of war will suddenly create a scenario in which the government is rounding up citizens for no apparent reason.

Can this power be abused? Possibly.
Is this a power that the President needs in wartime? Possibly.

Where is the line to be drawn?

 

[PLC1]

This thread of course peaked my interest -- so I did a little research. From what I read, everyone seems to be pointing to two sections the legislation as evidence that this legislation now allows US Citizens to be detained indefinitely without trail. Those sections are Section 1031 and Section 1032.

So -- unlike so many who seem to be reporting on this story -- I read those section of the legislation.

Section 1031 states:
"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."

Section 1032 states:
"UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

Additionally, those sections spell out what one must have done to fall under these categories -- and it is basically to take up arms against the United States, aid terror groups etc. It seems a stretch to assume allowing American citizens who openly commit treason to be detained under the laws of war will suddenly create a scenario in which the government is rounding up citizens for no apparent reason.

Can this power be abused? Possibly.
Is this a power that the President needs in wartime? Possibly.

Where is the line to be drawn?

That does sound somewhat comforting until you ask yourself, what is a terrorist group? Who gets to decide?

And, there is a difference between convicted of a treasonous act, indicted on a charge of one, and merely suspected. There is a large risk of abuse of power here, it seems to me.

 

[Arbopa]

Is everyone on one side simply reading something that isn't there, or did I miss something in reading the actual document? Because I see no such thing as is described.

 

[Kizzume]

Yeah, this leaves it way too open to interpretation of what a terrorist group is.

 

[BigRob]

That does sound somewhat comforting until you ask yourself, what is a terrorist group? Who gets to decide?

And, there is a difference between convicted of a treasonous act, indicted on a charge of one, and merely suspected. There is a large risk of abuse of power here, it seems to me.

I should have chosen my words more carefully:

Those same sections directly spell out who the "Covered Persons" are:

Section 1031:
(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.

Section 1032:
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 coordination 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.

Therefore...it seems to be that this legislation would not apply to domestic militia type groups, etc, and seems to solely apply to the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and their affiliates....so given the language it seemingly only applies to those American citizens which might be caught or engaged in terrorist activities abroad...in which case that is seemingly treason -- and I believe (but would need to double check) that the case about the German spies caught in the US found such actions forfeited citizenship -- making the Constitutional protections afforded to citizens not applicable.

 

[BigRob]

Yeah, this leaves it way too open to interpretation of what a terrorist group is.

See my response to PLC1.