"Senate To Vote On Legislation That Allows U.S. Military to Detain

[midnight]

Citizens Without Charge or Trial"


While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.

Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.http://www.thedailysheeple.com/your-front-yard-is-a-battlefield-senate-to-vote-on-legislation-that-allows-u-s-military-to-detain-citizens-without-charge-or-trial_112011

[Poll_Blind]

1. Damn, voting on Monday or Tuesday. They're quick when they wanna be. nt

PB

[limpyhobbler]

2. you have got to be kidding

realy??? Is this really happening? We have to start having "pledges" for democrat senators before we vote for them and getting rid of them in the primaries if they don't take the pledges. You know, like the republicans do with the tax pledge and such. Republicans have like total party loyalty, compared to the Democrats, who seem to stand for nothing. Also Harry Reid is a spineless worm. At least Obama said he would veto it, so that's a point for him.

[ZenaD]

3. Seriously, that ridonkulous.

Nice avatar, BTW.

[Eric J in MN]

4. Easy form to email Senate against this.

https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA

[Larkspur]

8. Thanks.

I added my comments and sent the email.

[Eric J in MN]

10. You're welcome NT

NT

[msongs]

5. of course our lovely president will veto this right?....right? nt

[Eric J in MN]

11. Obama is against this.

The administration has implied he'll veto.

Of course, we should ask our Senators to oppose this instead of counting on a veto.

[blkmusclmachine]

6. Welcome to 1984.

:scared:

[Scuba]

7. Another thread, same topic. Thanks for keeping this in the light....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2378124

[midnight]

9. Thanks suba, I've been spending time with my family and got to the news late

last night..... But just wow-Another bipartisan deal! " The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing."


Too bad we can't get a jobs bill together that quickly....

[malthaussen]

12. The fact that bills like this

... even see the light of day is enough to make one who loves this country weep.

-- Mal

[Eric J in MN]

13. kick

kick

[bhikkhu]

14. To read the bill, google "National Defense Authorization Act 1867"

Then click on the thomas.loc.gov link, which is second on my list (for some reason it seems to not work when pasted in).

Anyway, the relevant part is under Title X "General Provisions", Subtitle D "Detainee Matters", Section 1032 "Requirement for Military Custody" - where it specifically exempts US citizens from military detention.

...which makes me wonder if the people who wrote the OP, and those who have "trended" it all over the place, have read the bill.

Fact-checking is a good thing!

[midnight]

15. The ACLU on the site indicates otherwise:

If enacted, sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA would:

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA


Linking to your info. also a good thing...

[bhikkhu]

16. Here is the first part of Section 1032:

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 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.

(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.

--------------------

My bolding - noting most clearly how it exempts US citizens from detention. I don't know how it could be worded more clearly.

The bill has been around for some time and was more controversial in its prior form back in June/July. Perhaps the concern came from earlier versions, and it has been reworked to make things clearer and better thought out. It does seem that section 1031 has been removed from the version currently being debated (and I don't recall exactly what it said), along with many other sections if you page through it, but that's all a part of the process...

The Library of Congress site seems to work a little oddly - when you request a document it provides a link that is only active for 30 minutes. Or something like that, or maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I tried to link to it before and it didn't work. It does come up fine if you google "national defense authorization act 1867", though.

[midnight]

17. Thank you for posting.... Can you also post link?

[bhikkhu]

19. This is the link I was using:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867: - not sure if it will work.

the PDF download link is http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

[midnight]

25. Link does not work.

[woo me with science]

21. Nowhere does the bill PROHIBIT detention of US citizens.

It merely says that doing so is not a REQUIREMENT.

[avebury]

24. You have skimmed over the obvious.

The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States DOES NOT eliminate the fact that this bill could be used as an OPTION against US citizens. The Government is hoping that people like you will skim over the bill and jump to the conclusion that by saying that it is not a requirement that people will ASSUME that it may never be used against US Citizens.

You know what they say about the work assume?

[woo me with science]

20. Nowhere does the bill PROHIBIT detention of US citizens.

It merely says that doing so is not a REQUIREMENT.

[avebury]

23. Read the bill again. While it is not required to be used against

Americans, the bill does not specifically state that it cannot be used against Americans. It is an option - therefore it can be used against Americans.

[pscot]

18. If only the Prsident knew about this

I'm sure he'd promise to veto it; or something.

[woo me with science]

22. I don't think he really knows anyone in politics.

He doesn't have much clout in that area, we are constantly told.

[biermeister]

26. how they voted- read it and weep

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2011-218

[pghtytfan]

27. I'm heading to Canada

The world we're leaving our children is so fucked up.