• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

National Defense Authorization Act

Ranb

Penultimate Amazing
Ranb
Joined
Jul 25, 2003
Messages
11,320
Location
WA USA
I was reading some griping about this and that on other forums about the NDAA; mostly claims about throwing Americans in prison indefinitely when they are suspected of terrorism. I read about the 2012 version of the bill here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act

I read the latest version (I think) of the bill here; http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540pp/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540pp.pdf

(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

UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
Click to expand...

The law appears to be most affecting non-residents of the USA. What say you guys?

Ranb
 
Piscivore said:
Better. Still not in line with the best interpretation of the principles of the Constituion, IMO.
Click to expand...

Since the best principles of the Constitution include the option of waging war, and since waging war typically involves straight-up killing people, with no other due process than "we think you might be a legitimate target (or at least you might be standing next to a legitimate target)", it's not clear to me what part of the Constitution you think the NDAA is out of line with.
 
Ranb said:
The law appears to be most affecting non-residents of the USA. What say you guys?

Ranb
Click to expand...
It's the latest email rumor. People who can't be bothered to read the text are circulating it with inflammatory headlines.
 
Ranb and Robrob should look up the definition of the word "requirement".
 
The relevant portion of the bill is this:

(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.

(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.​

(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:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.​
Click to expand...

This is from section 1031 of the bill. The portion quoted by Ranb is from section 1032, so United States citizens are certainly not excluded. As long as there is a war on terror and the government decides you are either a terrorist or someone who has "directly supported" a terrorist, then you can be detained indefinitely according to this bill.

The full text of these sections can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c112ksICLj:e548990:

Senator Mark Udall apparently found the text of this bill disturbing enough that he proposed to strike it: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/~r112XNQab0:e129150: (heading SA 1107). His amendment, unfortunately, did not pass: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00210.
 
Is Obama still going to veto this piece of crap?
 
HatRack said:
This is from section 1031 of the bill. The portion quoted by Ranb is from section 1032, so United States citizens are certainly not excluded. As long as there is a war on terror and the government decides you are either a terrorist or someone who has "directly supported" a terrorist, then you can be detained indefinitely according to this bill.

The full text of these sections can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c112ksICLj:e548990:
Click to expand...

Your link does not work, it comes up as an expired search. Using my link 1031 also says this;

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
20 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
21 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
22 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
23 captured or arrested in the United States.
Click to expand...

Doesn't this exclude US citizens from detention?

Ranb
 
These start on page 418 of the senate version and from the wording of both sections they appear to rule out the ability to detain American citizens. Unless I'm reading them both wrong.
 
TruthersLie said:
These start on page 418 of the senate version and from the wording of both sections they appear to rule out the ability to detain American citizens. Unless I'm reading them both wrong.
Click to expand...

But why the ambiguity? Why can't it be more clear?

I think it's obvious that they're trying to keep it open to interpretation so it can be applicable to pretty much anyone they want to silence.
 
Ranb said:
(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.
Click to expand...
Doesn't this exclude US citizens from detention?
Click to expand...

No. This wording does not explicitly rule out the possibility of detaining US citizens nor does any other "existing law". See http://www.alternet.org/story/15342...accused_of_terror_could_pass_this_week?page=2.
 
I've been told that this bill allows an army Private in a bar to sexually assault a woman, and then declare her boyfriend to be an enemy combatant, thus costing him $500,000 in legal fees.
 
Ranb said:
Without some context, your post is meaningless.

Ranb
Click to expand...

You quoted the part of the bill I'm referring to.

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

The bill requires that the government hold terror suspects in military custody; this is the part that the Administration previously threatened to veto. The provisions referring to US citizens (there is this one and one other after it) exempt US citizens from the requirement to be held in military custody, but does not prevent the Administration from being able to do so.

Ranb said:
Doesn't this exclude US citizens from detention?

Ranb
Click to expand...

From the rat's mouth, no, it doesn't.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/07/obamas-indefinite-detention-powers

"According to its sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the amendment was intended to 'declare a truce' between those who say the detention power described by Graham already exists and those who disagree. Feinstein said the amendment 'leaves it to the courts to decide.'"

:boxedin:
 
Don't get too excited. His veto threat wasn't on behalf of concerns over how much power the government would have. His veto threat was because he wanted the choice, instead of the requirement, to have such detainees in military custody.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom