Patrick.net

Obama signs act allowing US citizens to be imprisoned forever, no trial

By Patrick   Follow   Mon, 2 Jan 2012, 3:53pm   11,486 views   120 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

I just can't quite believe this, but it seems to be true.

Is it now really legal for the military to imprison US citizens forever without trial?

The NDAA certainly seems to say so, according to two retired four-star Marine generals:

One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past. Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.

Soon even questioning the absolute control of the 1% over the US economy and government will also be classified as involvement with terrorism. That's what this is really about.

Another law called SOPA is intended to allow the quick shutdown of websites that even so much as give a link to material the government does not want you to view. It starts with copyright enforcement, but copyright enforcement is mere practice for other kinds of censorship. It does not seem coincidental that the NDAA violation of the Constitution happened so close to the SOPA proposal to censor the internet. Copyright is wrong. The Pirate Party is right.

The NDAA provisions are not legitimate and must not be obeyed by anyone working for the government or in the military. Please contact everyone in the military that you know and tell them they must not obey any orders that violate the fourth amendment. You might also send them a copy of the bill of rights to remind them what they are supposed to be defending.

Most Liked Comments

1. 033 Follow Befriend 7 threads 63 comments

   1   11:38pm Wed 4 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   I voted for Ron Paul in 2008. It was the last time I intended to vote. Since then, I've lost all hope.

2. bob2356 Follow Befriend 3 threads 2,498 comments

   2   10:08am Mon 9 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   msilenus says Detention of enemies until the end of hostilities in order to prevent their return to the battlefield is an important executive perogative during a time of war. It has never been denied to any Commander in Chief as long as we've been a nation. It must be permitted. A time of war???? So an act of terrorism by 18 people constitutes war against a nation of 320 million people. War means standing armies, not terrorist acts by people living in caves. Get a sense of proportion please. The second largest terrorist attack in America was a couple nut job survivalists. Is that an act of war also? Should we send in the military to Idaho, Montana, and Utah and clear out all the nut job survivalists that live there? I can't even begin to fathom why the war on terrorism exists. The response is so out of proportion to the actual threat that there just has to be something deeper going on. Europe and Israel have been dealing with terrorist attacks forever. They never mounted a war on terrorism or turned their countries upside down and inside out endlessly. It simply doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying we shouldn't be dealing with terrorism, just that it should be in response to the actual level of threat. The 9/11 attack happened because a lot of people dropped the ball, not because there wasn't any anti terrorism in place. Many of the problems with the entire anti terrorism effort that made 9/11 possible still exist. So are we actually looking to protect the citizens against terrorism or not? Not to sound paranoid but throughout history pursuing endless wars that don't make strategic sense is one of the classic signs of the end game of a nation in decline. Focus on external threats and distract the populace rather than dealing with internal problems. Just saying.

3. msilenus Follow Befriend (3) 8 threads 335 comments

   3   11:08am Wed 11 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   We're not creeping toward fascism. We've been violently lurching back and forth for much of the last decade. Lurch: Bush petitions the Supreme Court to neuter habeas corpus and judicial review. Lurch: He loses. Lurch: Detainees get right to petition for own release. Lurch: Congress passes a law suspending habeas corpus. Lurch: Supreme Court knocks it down. Lurch: End of torture. Lurch: Detainees start winning their detention challenges. Two stumbles forward, one stagger back. That's how it's been going, and the overall trend has been resoundingly positive. NDAA is creeping back a bit in some ways. Not nearly as much as people think. It can't suspend habeas corpus implicitly, because Congress has already tried that explicitly (Detainee Treatment Act of 2005), and that was ruled unconstitutional. The idea that detainees can petition to challenge their categorization is now very difficult for either of the political branches to assail, absent an actual invasion of the U.S. or widespread insurrection. Habeas and due process are protected in ways that can't be touched short of a constitutional amendment. I've been doing a bit of reading up on the NDAA, detention, et cetera, over at the lawfare blog. It's a good resource, stocked with lawyers who make these detention and war issues their specialty. They have a strong pro-human-rights bias. They know the caselaw. The quote below is the second-worst thing they say about NDAA (The worst is that it continues to make closing Guantanamo illegal; not a change from status quo, and no one here seems concerned about that.): Even so, enactment of section 1022, ambiguous and potentially toothless though it may be, is not without costs. It might well convey to the world that the American legislature views military detention as an unremarkable, even preferred, option in some terrorism cases, thereby blurring the important message the President has been endeavoring to convey, through word and practice, that“[t]he strong preference of this Administration is to accomplish [incapacitation of persons who are threats to the American people] through prosecution.” Moreover, as Raha Wala points out, the very existence of section 1022 might give a future Administration a slight measure of political cover if it decides to reverse President Obama’s policy and begin to detain in military custody persons such as another Abdulmutallab, who are captured in the United States. All in all, then, section 1022 is an unwelcome provision, even if it will (as we hope) have little or no practical impact on executive practice. Granted. It shapes perceptions in some bad ways, and might offer some political (not legal) cover. But compare that assessment to the rhetoric. And compare that cost to the cost of cutting off funds to an army conducting operations in a time of war. They also cite some improvements. For example, NDAA makes it a bit easier for the administration to transfer prisoners out of Gitmo. They are also very excited about how the law makes explicit reference to the laws of war when discussing detainees. That's significant, because it happens in the context of an ongoing judicial dispute over whether or not laws of war constrain the executive's treatment of unconventional combatants. The current administration is urging courts to conclude that they do, but different courts have concluded differently. Now Congress seems to agree, which could well settle that issue. NDAA is a mixed bag on the human rights front. Whether it's two creeps forward one creep back, or two creeps back and one creep forward is a matter of perspective. It's not another lurch in the wrong direction, which is what everyone seems to be taking it as. http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the-ndaa-the-good-the-bad-and-the-laws-of-war-part-i/#more-4643 http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the-ndaa-the-good-the-bad-and-the-laws-of-war-part-ii/#more-4646 http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/01/in-praise-of-the-signing-statement/

4. bob2356 Follow Befriend 3 threads 2,498 comments

   4   4:32pm Mon 2 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Patrick the key word is affirms the Presidents' authority. It was done already, this just makes it more firm.

5. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,191 threads 6,158 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA

   5   4:45pm Mon 2 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   How could the president have had that authority in the past? It seems to be an obvious violation of the habeas corpus and the right to a fair trial. No way can it be constitutional to imprison US citizens forever without trial. Why isn't this the main story on the NY Times website?

6. Anonymousone Follow Befriend (2) 511 threads 521 comments Anonymousone's website

   6   5:21pm Mon 2 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   &feature=youtu.be

7. Anonymousone Follow Befriend (2) 511 threads 521 comments Anonymousone's website

   7   5:28pm Mon 2 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Among the candidates, only Ron Paul is strongly opposed to the NDAA. He voted no on this along with just a handful in congress. The choice in 2012 should now be crystal clear.

8. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,191 threads 6,158 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA

   8   5:40pm Mon 2 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Here are the 14 senators who voted against the NDAA: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nt77r/the_14_senators_who_voted_against_ndaa_all_the/ Amazingly it's about evenly split R/D and of course good old Bernie Sanders as the lone independent.

9. Anonymousone Follow Befriend (2) 511 threads 521 comments Anonymousone's website

   9   5:57pm Mon 2 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Hi Patrick, Please allow me to suggest that this very important thread be kept prominently displayed. Thank you.

10. APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich Follow Befriend (28) 171 threads 4,220 comments Premium

    10   6:15pm Mon 2 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   This country is fucked.

11. msilenus Follow Befriend (3) 8 threads 335 comments

    11   6:47pm Mon 2 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Patrick says Here are the 14 senators who voted against the NDAA: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nt77r/the_14_senators_who_voted_against_ndaa_all_the/ Amazingly it's about evenly split R/D and of course good old Bernie Sanders as the lone independent. Not quite. NDAA was an omnibus spending bill. Voting against it would have been voting against funding our troops in peril, et cetera. Looking at the vote on the final bill as it pertains to the detention riders is misleading. Here's a vote on a Feinstein-Paul amendment to strip the detention provisions from pertaining to US-Citizens. It failed 45-55. A much closer vote. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00213 I stripped the Nays (against the amendemnt, for detention of citizens without trial.) The Senators on the right side of that vote were these: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bennet (D-CO), Yea Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea Boxer (D-CA), Yea Brown (D-OH), Yea Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Cardin (D-MD), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea Conrad (D-ND), Yea Coons (D-DE), Yea Durbin (D-IL), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Franken (D-MN), Yea Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea Hagan (D-NC), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Yea Johnson (D-SD), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea Kirk (R-IL), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Yea Lee (R-UT), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Yea Merkley (D-OR), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea Paul (R-KY), Yea Reed (D-RI), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea Shaheen (D-NH), Yea Tester (D-MT), Yea Udall (D-CO), Yea Udall (D-NM), Yea Warner (D-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea

12. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,191 threads 6,158 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA

    12   7:05pm Mon 2 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Thanks. This shows that the Republican Congressmen support violating the Constitution much much more than Democrats, except of course for Obama himself! FOR clarifying "the applicability of requirements for military custody with respect to detainees." 41 Democrats 3 Republicans AGAINST such clarification: 7 Democrats 30 Republicans So in spite of all their talk about respecting the Constitution, the Republicans are obviously the ones who are voting the most to shred it by imprisoning US citizens forever without trial. Obama is indeed runing Bush's 3rd term for him.

13. TMAC54 Follow Befriend (9) 70 threads 930 comments San Leandro, CA

    13   7:09pm Mon 2 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   I am not a political scholar. In Fact ......... This years NDAA seems to be the hurdle that changed us from a FREE COUNTRY. We were a FREE COUNTRY 2 days ago ! Do we now have to fear making political statements ? Could we now vanish due to a simple mix up in some evidence, or a typical identity theft or even just an over zealous Authority figure. But I wonder what the illegals think of this law ?

14. APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich Follow Befriend (28) 171 threads 4,220 comments Premium

    14   8:42pm Mon 2 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Why not just authorize the TSA to randomly fire automatic weapons into crowds. You know, there's got to be Al Qaeda in there somewhere statistically speaking and how much more dangerous would be it to just leave them all at large?

15. msilenus Follow Befriend (3) 8 threads 335 comments

    15   8:42pm Mon 2 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Patrick says Thanks. This shows that the Republican Congressmen support violating the Constitution much much more than Democrats, except of course for Obama himself! Harumph. I think what you mean to say is that the Republicans are hard on terrorists, and this is what Obama has to say on the matter: http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/12/31/obama-defense-bill-signing-statement/ Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "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." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law. Sissy.

16. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,191 threads 6,158 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA

    16   9:09pm Mon 2 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says Why not just authorize the TSA to randomly fire automatic weapons into crowds. You know, there's got to be Al Qaeda in there somewhere statistically speaking and how much more dangerous would be it to just leave them all at large? Right! If you don't agree with Apocalypsefuck, then you're the sissy! Screw the constitution, human rights, and your own personal safety. If you're not for firing automatic weapons into crowds to kill any terrorists that might happen to be in there, then you're soft on terrorism, you pansy traitor libtard commie socialist Obama-kissing bastard.

17. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,191 threads 6,158 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA

    17   9:18pm Mon 2 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   msilenus says Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Not good enough, not by a long shot. "will not authorize" actually means "can authorize at will, but say we won't, for now". And can you count on the next president to even say he "will not authorize" your permanent imprisonment without trial? Or the one after that?

18. Anonymousone Follow Befriend (2) 511 threads 521 comments Anonymousone's website

    18   1:48am Tue 3 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Cloud says I have just become a Ron Paul supporter...gonna write the check today. Dr. Paul has been fighting for liberty and the Constitution for decades. His message was relevant then and now more relevant than ever. Welcome Aboard!

19. EastCoastBubbleBoy Follow Befriend (11) 104 threads 455 comments Premium

    19   4:05am Tue 3 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Just in case anyone wants to read the bill or the President's signing statement.

20. kentm Follow Befriend (1) 117 threads 971 comments

    20   4:35am Tue 3 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Glad to see the club has finally picked up on this. My post from a few days ago didn't seem to garner much attention. The definitive word on the bill is Glenn Greenwald, read through his postings on the thing to get the clearest idea http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/