4th Amendment gone?

[spherojon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMogo...ayer_embedded#!

Is everyone okay with the National Defense Authorization Act provision giving the US military broader authority to detain people suspected of being affiliated with terrorists on US soil. Just being "suspected," not convicted, and completely bipassing the 1st/4th/5th/6th/8th Amendments.

"US president Barack Obama signed into law on New Year's Eve a bill that, among other provisions, give the US military broader authority to detain people suspected of being affiliated with terrorists on US soil.
The bill in question is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It allocates funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also includes "counter-terrorism" provisions which would allow the military to detain anyone on US soil indefinitely, without needing to guarantee a trial.
Both critics and supporters of NDAA say this provision would apply to US citizens; however, the actual text of the bill is phrased less clearly and is ambiguous, according to an analysis by Raha Wala, a lawyer for Human Rights Watch. Wala, however, believes "it’s pretty clear as a general matter that Section 1021 is designed to reach U.S. citizens."
Obama, upon signing the NDAA, said in a statement that he still had "reservations", but decided not to veto it. "The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists," he said.
"[...] Our success against al-Qaeda and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world."
'It should chill all of us to our cores'
Republican presidential candidate and Representative from Texas Ron Paul voiced objection to the bill, saying that "[The bill] should chill all of us to our cores." In a telephone message to supporters, Paul said: "The founders wanted to set a high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty. To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured.
"The Patriot Act, as bad as its violation against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly."
Paul's son Rand, who is serving as a Senator from Kentucky, similarly objected to the legislation.
Other lawmakers on Capitol Hill, however, differed. Lindsay Graham from South Carolina said the broad measures were necessary for national security. "It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next. And when they say, 'I want my lawyer,' you tell them, 'Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.'"
Many human rights groups, however, see NDAA as being a threat to liberties, and unconstitutional. Christopher Anders, of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement: "The sponsors of the bill monkeyed around with a few minor details, but all of the core dangers remain—the bill authorizes the president to order the military to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others found far from any battlefield, even in the United States itself."

http://theopenglobe.org/wiki/Obama_s..._bill_into_law


Edit: Added some amendments and color.

[spherojon]

Not to mention

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daphne...b_1182067.html

This time last year, President Obama responded to the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act with a signing statement. Objecting to the law's restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. for trial or to their home countries, the president promised: "My Administration will work with the Congress to seek repeal of these restrictions, will seek to mitigate their effects, and will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future." (My emphasis).

This past New Year's eve, President Obama signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA. In doing so, he extended the Guantanamo transfer restrictions, while also codifying the indefinite detention without trial of suspected terrorists. In the statement he issued with that signature, he said:

"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."

The pledge to seek repeal and oppose expansion of transfer restrictions had melted into a watery "reservation."

The president's Saturday statement also makes a new promise.

"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." Although the Obama Administration has consistently claimed the power to kill U.S. citizens without charge or trial in the war on terror, as it did to the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, the president now promises not to imprison them.

Of course, a future president still might.

President Obama presumably didn't mean to imply (did he?) that indefinite military detention without trial of non-citizens -- whether lawful U.S. residents or foreign suspects the U.S. captures anywhere in the world -- is now consistent with "our most important traditions and values as a Nation." That would directly contradict the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that no "person" (not just U.S. citizen) "shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

But the NDAA wasn't all bad when it comes to U.S. military detention policy. In fact, section 1024 of the law, spearheaded by Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, provides detainees held indefinitely in Afghanistan with the right to a military defense lawyer and a neutral military judge to evaluate whether their detention is lawful and necessary. The provision was not particularly controversial and garnered little media attention; Congress apparently understood that for the U.S. to maintain any legitimacy while imprisoning some 3,000 Afghans in their own country it has to provide them basic rights to defend themselves. The current summary review proceedings at Bagram, which I wrote about in a report for Human Rights First after observing them last year, doesn't come anywhere near doing that.

President Obama's signing statement, however, suggests he plans to ignore that part of the law he just signed:

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch's processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.
In other words, the president has just thumbed his nose at Congress and said the Defense Secretary will provide whatever review procedure he wants to. And he's done that in a particularly cynical manner, claiming that Congress is interfering with executive power merely by demanding that the executive be held accountable for its exercise. That claim rings particularly hollow given that the current review process provided detainees in Afghanistan is even less robust than the one the Bush Administration provided to detainees at Guantanamo Bay and that the Supreme Court in 2008 struck down as inadequate. Though the Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled on the rights of Bagram detainees, it could approve the current Detainee Review Board process only by ignoring U.S. obligations under international human rights law.

Unfortunately, the text of the NDAA does leave many details to the Defense Secretary. While Section 1024 says "long-term detainees" are entitled to these new protections, it doesn't define "long-term." President Obama's statement suggests he may allow Secretary Leon Panetta to define "long-term" so narrowly as to exclude almost anyone the U.S. detains in Afghanistan, either now or in the future. Whatever Congress meant by Section 1024, it couldn't have been that.

Back when he was a candidate, then-Senator Obama criticized President George W. Bush for his frequent reliance on signing statements to circumvent Congressional intent: "[I]t is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability. I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law."

What a difference executive power makes.

[ddoering]

The Patriot Act doesn't look so bad now, does it........

[Richard]

Meh...

Go read the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012" here:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...2hr1540enr.pdf

Click the little binos on the left sidebar. In the box, type "1022" and click "Search," then click on the results until you find the one you want.

It specifically talks about circumstances in which we are at "War" IAW existing public law and, under the "Subtitle D--Counterterrorism" sections 1021 and 1022, it specifically states:

(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.

...and...

(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.

I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Richard

I am certain that in this country one can already be detained should the government deem it necessary. They don't really need a law for this, do they? Especially when they already have a law stating they can kill US citizens, or anyone for that matter, should they deem it appropriate.

.
If the US Government detained or killed anyone under either of these two laws, I seriously doubt that any of us would hear about it In reference to those laws...for instance, we will not hear in the news something like, "The White House today invoked its self appointed authority granted by them in the recently passed NDAA..."

We probably wouldn't hear anything at all.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Sarski

We probably wouldn't hear anything at all.

I disagree - this is America and things like that don't go unnoticed by somebody.

Richard

Originally Posted by Richard

I disagree - this is America and things like that don't go unnoticed by somebody.

Richard

Right, a bit presumptuous on my part, but I wonder if that which would be reported would actually be the truth. Do you think the media would come out and report the facts as they are? Or as reported to them during a press conference? Or perhaps something discovered long down the road through the FOIA? And then, whatever investigation was being conducted would have to maintain some of its integrity.

[Crito]

I followed this closely a few weeks ago. At the beginning there was a lot of bad journalism that made it sound like detention would apply to US citizens.

As Richard points out it does not.

If anything it is attempting to clear up the question of what rights does a non US citizen arrested on terrorism charges inside our borders have?

[DevilSide]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

If China/Russians/ insert country sends their troops and invade the US would you send the FBI to arrest them and send them to court or send the military and attack them? I hope your answer is send the military.

Now if AQ sends their people here to kill Americans what is the difference? Why not send the military? Now I am NOT advocating using the military against US citizens but only against an invading FOREIGN force.

Agreed, can't treat it like common criminals, when militants attack its a military matter.

Was more concerned about the document that called protesting low level terrorism.

[Doc Diego]

Thanks Richard...it would appear that Obama has not read the bill. Unfortunately, I still believe our liberties are disappearing.

[CloseDanger]

Stupid Things in the NDAA You Probably Missed

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by CloseDanger

Stupid Things in the NDAA You Probably Missed

This will end up being like the Healthcare Bill and we'll play it by ear and see how it pans out....me personally I think that in the legal world the use of 'extends' is a bit vague and leaves some room for interpretation whereas the 'excludes' would have been more definitive.


Regardless of the true intentions of the law, I am of the mind that with or without the law the current POTUS will do whatever the hell he wants should things get too hot in the kitchen.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by CloseDanger

Stupid Things in the NDAA You Probably Missed

Stupid or TBD...?

http://www.jcs.mil/newsarticle.aspx?ID=781

Might not be so far-fetched IAW the forthcoming national strategy.

And so it goes...

Richard

[spherojon]

Thanks Richard for the info.

I'm just a little confused on how this bill was signed with so many flaws.

Stephen Cobert does a pretty good sum up of the bill...

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...=synd_facebook

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by spherojon

I'm just a little confused on how this bill was signed with so many flaws.

You mean loop holes.