Or so it seems as America has just turned into a "battlefield" and the US citizens could possibly be detained by the military indefinitely. Yea, it's true. Though the ACLU Is Not Pleased
WASHINGTON - The Senate is poised to pass the National Defense Authorization Act[op edit: it passed the Senate 93-7], with an extraordinary expansion and statutory bolstering of authority for the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world.But hey, don't worry folks. Your man Barry 'O' is Threatening Veto it
A last-minute amendment was negotiated between Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) that passed, but does not prohibit its application to American citizens or others in the United States.
Additional amendments offered by Sens. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Feinstein to strike and limit the detention power were defeated despite strong showings of support.
The Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI, the Director of the CIA and the head of the Justice Department's National Security Division have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA are harmful and counterproductive to their work. The White House has issued a veto threat over the provisions.
"The bill is an historic threat to American citizens and others because it expands and makes permanent the authority of the president to order the military to imprison without charge or trial American citizens," said Christopher Anders, ACLU senior legislative counsel. "The final amendment to preserve current detention restrictions could turn out to be meaningless and Senators Levin and Graham made clear that they believe this power to use the military against American citizens will not be affected by the new language. This bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent. If it becomes law, American citizens and others are at real risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial.
"Given that the House version of the legislation is already very troubling, the final House-Senate negotiated bill will likely be even worse. Unless Congress somehow comes to its senses, President Obama should get his veto pen ready."
WASHINGTON -- Accusing the Senate of "political micromanagement" of national security, the White House Friday stood by its threat to veto a defense bill over controversial military detention provisions.
The National Defense Authorization Act passed Thursday by the Senate contains a section that spells out the military's power to detain Americans indefinitely without trial and mandates military detention for some terrorism suspects.
The White House warned last month that senior advisers would recommend a veto, saying the detainee provisions could restrict the ability of law enforcement to combat terrorism and "make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult."
It also contended that rather than clarifying the rules, the bill was adding uncertainty to the difficult legal landscape around detentions. Civil libertarians and many senators opposed to the detainee section charged that the bill was trampling Americans' basic rights to due process.
The Senate sought to soothe the objections Thursday night by adding an amendment that says the provision will not affect current law on detainees.
It won almost unanimous passage in the Senate, but the compromise was not sufficient for the White House.
"Republican and Democratic administrations ... have said that the language in this bill would jeopardize our national security by restricting flexibility in our fight against al Qaeda," spokesman Jay Carney said in his daily briefing Friday. "By ignoring these nonpartisan recommendations -- including the recommendations of the secretary of defense, the director of the FBI, the director of national Intelligence and the attorney general -- the Senate has unfortunately engaged in a little political micromanagement at the expense of sensible national security policies.
"So our position has not changed," Carney added. "Any bill that challenges or constrains the president's critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation would prompt his senior advisers to recommend a veto."
A former Bush administration official echoed Carney.
"I sympathize with what the sponsors are trying to do," said John Bellinger, a partner at the law firm Arnold & Porter who served as legal adviser to the State Department and the National Security Council. "But these provisions go far beyond anything the Bush administration either did, or would have tolerated."
Bellinger was referring specifically to the two sections in the bill that mandate military detention and heavily restrict where and how terrorism detainees must be imprisoned, as well as rules for moving them.
"Those are the kind of micromanagement of the president's military and law enforcement authority that the Bush administration opposed adamantly ...
particularly when it came to prosecuting the war with al Qaeda," Bellinger said.
Bellinger also warned that the detainee provision could threaten the ability of U.S. officials to get cooperation from allies who are likely to object to indefinite detentions, and could therefore be unwilling to provide information that leads to people being captured.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee who managed the bill, was traveling and could not be reached for comment.
And for those of you who are more accustom to cliff notes, here you go. The provisions in the bill:
SEC. 1031
(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.
© 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.
(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 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(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.
(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).]
Would you take note to the language of this shit. Detention without trial until the end of forever is what they're saying. It just makes you wonder how low is the bar for "supporting" these organizations defined very loosely as 'Al-Qaeda and associated forces" going to continue on for?
And what annoys me most about all this is that some people would simply say that the ACLU and other groups arguing against this are just being sensational on it. To that I would offer that it says requirement. This means they don't have to have you detained as a US citizen or resident alien. If you happen to be suspected of supporting, which is a vague term in itself, a terrorist cell of Al-Qaeda or associated forces, you can be disappeared into indefinite detention in America.
Crazy shit. So much so that I feel like just mocking this whole story because if I didn't, I would probably just fall into a deeper state of depressing in thinking that this world... it doesn't have much time left at the rate we're doing our doings here.
This part just had me cracking up in a sad way.
"Republican and Democratic administrations ... have said that the language in this bill would jeopardize our national security by restricting flexibility in our fight against al Qaeda," spokesman Jay Carney said in his daily briefing Friday. "By ignoring these nonpartisan recommendations -- including the recommendations of the secretary of defense, the director of the FBI, the director of national Intelligence and the attorney general -- the Senate has unfortunately engaged in a little political micromanagement at the expense of sensible national security policies.
Then again, if you think about this really means literally nothing that wasn't already out in the open before is going to change. It needs to go through the house and all that, and yeah, Obama has said he would Veto it. But you have to stop and think to yourself about this for a moment. This thing passed with a 93-7 vote in the senate. Fuuuuuuck. You better hope Obama doesn't back out of that or it's passing the House easily.
And for all you "cynical" liberals who are saying that this was a republican ploy to make Obama look soft on terrorism when he inevitably vetoes it. I just shake my head to you. I really don't know how to explain this to the those who aren't in the loop of things, because I will probably look like a raving lunatic to them. This is partly because it took me a good half hour to actually come to the realization that this is a real thing that is just happening without all that much fuss.
It's already to the point where I know my future is going to be locked away in our version of Tahrir in about 30 years for the radical post of expression that I wrote on some stupid blogspot blogger for years and years. Speaking out against the injustice of capitalism? HOW DARE I!
I dare and I shall do it again, see as I state that citizens should respond to this by literally making America a battlefield. As a man who valued kite flying and electricity once said:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.At first I was surprised that they would bother being police state about militant Islam. But hey, this is probably preventive measures against the left, right? Oh wait, does it really matter?
Think about it for a second. They never actually use "it's a battlefield" as an excuse for killing militant Islamist, they always use the excuse of "they're bad guys" to excuse every bit of their actions. "It's a battlefield" is the excuse they use for why it's okay to bomb marketplaces and weddings. I just have to wonder how long until they start using the drone strikes in our own country. Oh wait, that's already getting on its way.... Cities already have huge amounts of cameras.
The sad thing to all of this is that there's a 10 to 1 odd of the average response from "Normal people" to all of this being: "Why does this concern you? If you're not a terrorist or doing anything wrong then what do you have to hide?"
In itself, it's just formalizing the already ongoing process of detaining political prisoners indefinitely yes and actually legalizing it, which makes it all that much worse, to be honest. This allows it to be almost impossible for those people who commit those actions and those who approved or ordered those actions to be brought to justice barring a glorious people's revolution... which just isn't in the cards to begin with.
Besides that, detainees are already getting executed for 'assaulting a guard and attempting to escape', as it is. But hey, what won't we give up for a little bit of false safety?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment