Defense Act Affirms Indefinite Military Detention of US Citizens

**Horhey** · May 09 2012, 12:58 AM

IPS: Defense Act Affirms Indefinite Detention of US Citizens

by Matthew Cardinale

ATLANTA, Georgia - Civil liberties groups and many citizen activists are outraged over language in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) that appears to lay the legal groundwork for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial.

David Gespass, president of the National Lawyers Guild, called it an "enormous attack on the U.S. and our heritage" and a "significant step" towards fascism, in an interview with IPS.

"For a very long time the U.S. has been moving towards what I personally think of as fascist - the integration of monopoly capital with state power, that's combined with an increased repression at home and greater aggression around the world. I don't think we're there yet, but I do see that we're going in that direction," Gespass said. "I think the... act is a significant step in that direction."

"It's quite severe. If this continues, people will not be able to count on constitutional protections at all," Debra Sweet, national director of the group World Can't Wait, told IPS.

ABC News: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

In his last official act of business in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii. In a statement, the president said he did so with reservations about key provisions in the law — including a controversial component that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.

The legislation has drawn severe criticism from civil liberties groups, many Democrats, along with Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who called it “a slip into tyranny.” Recently two retired four-star Marine generals called on the president to veto the bill in a New York Times op-ed, deeming it “misguided and unnecessary.”

“Due process would be a thing of the past,” wrote Gens Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar. “Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States – and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor:

1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.

Another sponsor of the bill – Senator Levin – has also repeatedly said that the bill applies to American citizens on American soil, citing the Supreme Court case of Hamdi which ruled that American citizens can be treated as enemy combatants:

The Supreme Court has recently ruled there is no bar to the United States holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. This is the Supreme Court speaking.

Levin again stressed recently that the bill applies to American citizens, and said that it was president Obama who requested that it do so:

Under questioning from Rand Paul, another co-sponsor – John McCain – said that Americans suspected of terrorism could not only be indefinitely detained, but could be sent to Guantanamo:

Two retired 4-star generals (Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar) write in the New York Times:

One provision [in the bill] would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past.

Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley writes:

Americans will now be subject to indefinite detention without trial in federal courts in a measure supported by both Democrats and Republicans. It is a curious way to celebrate the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights.

The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.

The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

**Horhey** · May 09 2012, 01:12 AM

...............

ACLU: President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law

WASHINGTON – President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations. The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill.

“President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” said Romero. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.”

The bill also contains provisions making it difficult to transfer suspects out of military detention, which prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to testify that it could jeopardize criminal investigations. It also restricts the transfers of cleared detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to foreign countries for resettlement or repatriation, making it more difficult to close Guantanamo, as President Obama pledged to do in one of his first acts in office.

**Horhey** · May 09 2012, 01:25 AM

**Jason Bourne** · May 09 2012, 01:26 AM

Written by US Representative Tim Griffin:

Last week, both the House and Senate passed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This annual bill provides critical authorities and resources for the U.S. Department of Defense and the men and women of our Armed Forces. Due to two sections in the larger bill, which contain provisions that affirm and clarify legal authorities for waging the war on terrorism and detaining terrorists, the 2012 NDAA has found itself the subject of an unexpected misinformation campaign that suggests these provisions could lead to the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without due process.

The misinformation surrounding the 2012 NDAA is a result of the misinterpretation of provisions included in Sections 1021 and 1022 of the act. These provisions are an important part of the 2012 NDAA and provide vital clarity for our Armed Forces defending America around the world. Our forces have officially withdrawn from Iraq and are on a timetable for a similar drawdown in Afghanistan. However, terrorists around the world continue to plot devastating attacks against Americans.

Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA solidifies the legal authority under which our forces continue to engage the enemy. It also provides clarity that would otherwise continue to erode as terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay challenge their detention through litigation in federal court.

The 2012 NDAA sets a clear standard that U.S. forces retain the authority to detain al Qaida and Taliban terrorists and members of associated forces who are committing acts of war against the U.S. The debate over these provisions; however, has shifted to well-intentioned concerns for our civil liberties. Unfortunately, certain outside groups, to their discredit, launched an attack based on issues that were not addressed in the legislation. They have even gone so far as to allege that a U.S. citizen could accidentally or unknowingly provide substantial support to al Qaida terrorists in committing acts of war against the U.S. Such a proposition defies any plain reading of the bill.

A large factual gap has formed between what is being said about the bill and what provisions the bill actually contains. The shared passion for our freedom has exacerbated this gap, as third-party voices like the ALCU and even some members of Congress have committed themselves to defeating controversial provisions that do not exist.

I would never support legislation that granted the government authority to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens in the U.S. without the right to challenge the legality of any such detention through a petition for habeas corpus. Nor would any judge, court, or attorney in this nation uphold such an infringement of our rights.

To be clear, Section 1021 in no way infringes upon a U.S. citizen’s right to due process.

This legislation does not make any changes to existing law as it relates to the treatment of U.S. citizens. The rules of war draw a distinct line between combatants and non-combatants. Our laws also provide a legal distinction between lawful combatants, those who wear a military uniform and abide by the Law of Armed Conflict, and unlawful combatants who seek to use the freedoms of a democratic society to their advantage. Sadly, a few of those unlawful combatants have been U.S. citizens, who took part in planning attacks against the U.S.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/22/do...#ixzz1uMYcE0Jx