Thread: Indefinite Detention of US Citizens-A good thing?

National Defense Authorization Act spurs uprising from left and right on detainee provisions - St. Petersburg Times


An excerpt from the Dec 8, 2011 article in the St Petersburg Times:


WASHINGTON — In Florida, Sen. Marco Rubio has been attacked as a "traitor." In Arizona, tea party members protested against Sen. John McCain. In Utah, Occupy demonstrators donned black hoods to stand against "radical and uncalled for constraints on our constitutional rights.”


The uprising is directed at provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, approved by the Senate last week, that would require the military to arrest terrorist suspects in the United States and detain them indefinitely without trial.


The question is, what do you think about this? Should the government have the right to detain a citizen indefinitely without trial if that person is thought to be engaged in terrorist activities?

Originally Posted by Borey the Bald

Indefinite Detention of US Citizens-A good thing?

All of them ?

Bloody oath, damn fine idea.

So when will they delete "land of the free" from their anthem?

Mr Borey, that is the most disjointed news article that I've ever read (it's like a NY Times opinion piece).
As to your Q, I believe that supposed terrorists were detained under the Patriot Act. The problem is, they can bag you for saying the First Lady is a pig.

Originally Posted by Minnie Maugham

Mr Borey, that is the most disjointed news article that I've ever read (it's like a NY Times opinion piece).
As to your Q, I believe that supposed terrorists were detained under the Patriot Act. The problem is, they can bag you for saying the First Lady is a pig.

I agree, it is difficult to read. Here is another source, the ACLU blog:

The Senate voted last Thursday to pass S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which would authorize the president to send the military literally anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial. Prison based on suspicion alone. The power is so sweeping that the president would be able to direct the military to use its powers within the United States itself, and even lock up American citizens without charge or trial.
No corner of the world, not even your own home, would be off-limits to the military. And there is no exception for American citizens. Section 1031 — one of the indefinite detention provisions — of the Senate-approved version of the NDAA has no limitations whatsoever based on geography, duration or citizenship. And the entire Senate bill was drafted in secret, with no hearing, and with committee votes behind closed doors.
I'm not sure which was more surprising — that the majority of senators ignored the pleas of countless constituents, or that they also ignored every top national security official opposed to the provisions. Opposition to the detention provisions came from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, White House Advisor for Counterterrorism John Brennan, and DOJ National Security Division head Lisa Monaco. The Senate ignored them all.

Trying to find that amendment. Those bills are padded with so much sh*t.
Check this:
US Senate Traitors Pass ‘Indefinite Detention’ Bill S.1867, Create A Military Police State – Senator Rand Paul’s Adress To The American People (Video)

George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin are all turning in their graves.....

One could expect that a bill to detain US citizens indefinitely without trial would bring strong objection from conservative senators, but that was not the case. Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, along with Democratic Senator Carl Levin, strongly supported this part of the bill with some fear-mongering rhetoric. Republican Senator Rand Paul, on the other hand, called this bill “not American”. (I would have called it treasonous.)


When the original Patriot Act was passed, we were supposed to forgive its odious sections because the act was passed hurriedly. In this current case it is clear that this section (on indefinite detention) was deliberately put in the bill. Powerful senators stopped changes to the bill that would have dropped the US citizen detention portion.


I must wonder what these senators are so afraid of that they support the gutting of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. But the response here on TD shows that there is a lack of outrage on the part of average citizens. If the bill gutted the 2nd Amendment, there would be rioting in the streets.

America is simply becoming a mirror image of its formerly fascist European parent,

Nothing to get excited about. It's a back door solution to their obesity problems.

Originally Posted by FailSafe

Isn't this bill aimed specifically at those suspected of terrorism- in other words citizens considered enemy combatants? It's basically a consolidation of a supreme court ruling from 2004- the president would still have the option of having them tried in a civilian court.

This is not a blanket policy covering anyone suspected of a crime.

The problem is that the definition of "terrorism" is so broad that it could be used to include groups such as the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street (whether or not that was the original intent).



The Homeland Security Act:


"(15) The term ‘‘ terrorism’’ means any activity that—
(A) involves an act that—
(i) is dangerous to human life or potentially
destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources;
and
(ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States or of any State or other subdivision of the United
States; and
(B) appears to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion;..."

Thus if, for instance, an OWS mob marched down the street through a city (breaking state laws) in an attempt to influence government policy, they could be defined as "terrorist".

^

That's ACLU fear-mongering- demonstrating is legal and OWS has been going on for months, and what they are doing is not considered 'terrorism'- again, there were laws on the books since 2004- what exactly is new with this bill that hasn't already existed for years?

Regardless, the bill is NOT finalized and won't be until next week- Obama is threatening a veto if the wording isn't changed to exclude US citizens.

Originally Posted by FailSafe

^

That's ACLU fear-mongering- demonstrating is legal and OWS has been going on for months, and what they are doing is not considered 'terrorism'- again, there were laws on the books since 2004- what exactly is new with this bill that hasn't already existed for years?

Regardless, the bill is NOT finalized and won't be until next week- Obama is threatening a veto if the wording isn't changed to exclude US citizens.

Your comment is precisely why I referenced opposition by both Rand Paul and the ACLU: so fear-mongering on the left could not be charged. The real fear-mongering came from McCain and Levin (Republican and Democrat) when trying to justify the bill. This is not a left or right issue, it is fundamentally an issue of governmental power and control.

I do not pretend to fully understand all the laws and issues involved, but when both Rand Paul and the ACLU have constitutional issues with a proposed bill, I think it is appropriate to discuss those issues. Should we wait until a bill is finalized before we take an objective look at it?

That said, below is an excerpt of the offending bill (I think the appropriate part). To me it is ambiguous. Like most legislation, it appears to be written to defy comprehension.

Subtitle D—Detainee Matters

20 (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.
3 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
5 (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.
9 (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.
16 (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:
19 (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
22 (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 111.25 84)).
1 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
3 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
6 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in7
tended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
10 (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.

You're not answering the basic question- what will this bill actually change? How is it fundamentally different from the supreme court ruling from 2004? Where was all the outrage then? How many Americans have been prosecuted under that ruling?

And, as already stated, the bill isn't finalized- the president opposes it and still has veto power- the wording will very likely be changed.

Originally Posted by FailSafe

You're not answering the basic question- what will this bill actually change? How is it fundamentally different from the supreme court ruling from 2004? Where was all the outrage then? How many Americans have been prosecuted under that ruling?

And, as already stated, the bill isn't finalized- the president opposes it and still has veto power- the wording will very likely be changed.

What your demanding an answer to is really not relevant to the question asked in the thread: is it good or appropriate for the US Senate to passing a bill that allows the indefinite detention of US citizens?

But to your question, I suppose you are referring to the Hamdi vs Rumsfeld decision. This decision is actually not at all relevant to the question, either. This decision is about the Presidents power during wartime. I believe the decision even mentions the fact that this detention was not authorized by Congress.

If there is compelling evidence that those citizens conspired with other governments against the USA then I would say treating them as enemy combatants is appropriate- the right of citizenship isn't a one-way street.

Do you think people that have in essence renounced their citizenship by taking arms against their country deserve better? This goes way beyond protests like OWS.

This bill along with the so-called "patriot act" are criminal. They are clear violations of our freedoms as Americans.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

^Quite right. But politicians like to use fear as justification to increase their power, especially during wartime. Civil War, WWI, WWII, all had infamous cases.

Originally Posted by FailSafe

If there is compelling evidence that those citizens conspired with other governments against the USA then I would say treating them as enemy combatants is appropriate- the right of citizenship isn't a one-way street.

If you are locked up indefinitely without trial, who is reviewing this evidence. It sounds like it is up to the local commissar to decide.

Ben Franklin lived in a time of single-shot muskets and cannon balls- his world no longer exists and that quote has lost a lot of relevance.

How has your life in the US changed since the Patriot Act? Not much if any- I'm not a fan of it, but what is really different? Gun ownership rights have actually relaxed in most states, the right to protest is alive and well, etc.

I would love to live in the world the Founding Fathers envisioned, but I don't and never will.

Let's see what happens after next week- this bill may very well be vetoed or altered.

Originally Posted by Borey the Bald

Originally Posted by FailSafe

If there is compelling evidence that those citizens conspired with other governments against the USA then I would say treating them as enemy combatants is appropriate- the right of citizenship isn't a one-way street.

If you are locked up indefinitely without trial, who is reviewing this evidence. It sounds like it is up to the local commissar to decide.

The president would retain the right to order a civilian trial for any citizen prosecuted under the bill.

Again, Obama is against it and it's still not finalized- you're talking like it's a 'done deal'

Originally Posted by FailSafe

The president would retain the right to order a civilian trial for any citizen prosecuted under the bill.

Again, Obama is against it and it's still not finalized- you're talking like it's a 'done deal'

Yes, if the president wanted, a citizen could be allowed a trial. And true, it is not a 'done deal', but it is about a third of the way through the political process.

And this, from Rand Paul's website (in response to an article by a Mr. McCarthy):

If you allow the government the unlimited power to detain citizens without a jury trial, you are exposing yourself to the whim of those in power. That is a dangerous game....


I am more of the Madison persuasion than Mr. McCarthy; I am worried that since governments are not constituted of angels, we must take care to restrain government with specific rules of conduct.


I am very conscious of the fact that the battlefield is not a place to read Miranda rights. In my recent opposition to detaining U.S. citizens, I specifically emphasized that my statement referred to citizens apprehended in the U.S., and not on the battlefield.


In the 1942 case Ex parte Quirin, the Court cited, and did not criticize, the government's assertion that the one detained German alleged to be a naturalized U.S. citizen may have given up his citizenship by taking up arms against the United States. I tend to agree that taking up arms indicates a renunciation of citizenship. I have informed Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) that I support legislation that would clarify when a citizen's actions may cause him or her to lose citizenship, and I will work to give this debate more clarity.


It is important to remember that civil liberties need defenders. The Bush administration in Hamdi argued for indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen without even the minimum requirements of due process. Bush lost. The court held that the executive branch does not have unlimited power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, and that citizens must be afforded basic due-process protections.


This debate is an important one, but it must begin with facts, not inaccurate accusations. Contrary to McCarthy's assertions, I do not argue for giving alien enemies constitutional protections. I do, however, argue for preserving U.S. citizens' constitutional rights.
Some conservatives may choose to trust the government to always do the right thing, but I fear the day when leaders come to power who would abuse that power. Therefore, I will continue to fight for limitations on it.

So Paul agrees that citizens taking up arms against the USA is the same as a renunciation of citizenship and believes that it removes constitutional protection (and what about when the USA is the battlefield?)- I would think he would feel the same about the people who qualify as 'covered persons' in the bill:

(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.