NDAA 2013 - Indefinite detention without trial is back

[naaman fletcher]

Source: Russia Today

Lawmakers in Washington have stripped an amendment from next year’s National Defense Authorization Act that could have kept the government from indefinitely detaining US citizens without charge or trial.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Michigan) told reporters on Tuesday that an amendment to the 2013 defense spending bill approved only two weeks earlier had been removed. That amendment, authored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), was pitched as a solution to a clause in the current NDAA that allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens without due process or habeas corpus.

Under the 2012 NDAA, US President Barack Obama is affirmed the power to put any American citizen behind bars if he or she is suspected of assisting in any way with forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or its allies. That provision, Sec. 1021, says any person who commits a “belligerent act” against the country can be imprisoned indefinitely “without trial” until the vaguely-worded period of hostilities has come to an end.

Pres. Obama signed the 2012 NDAA into law on December 31 of last year, but included a statement at the time that condemned the powers under Sec. 1021 that he awarded himself.

Read more: http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-indefinite-detention-trial-403/

---

We need to pressure the whitehouse to veto the bill until indefinite detention is stripped

[a geek named Bob]

1. How about a source NOT from RT? n/t

[naaman fletcher]

2. Would you accept, say, the NY Times?

NY Times would never lie about WMD's in Iraq, for example.

Anyway, here is Salon's take:

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/19/ndaas_indefinite_detention_without_trial_returns/

[a geek named Bob]

3. much better!

and yes, I tend to trust the New York Times a lot more than the present incarnation of Pravda.

[lib2DaBone]

4. I don't get it... why would Carl Levin put this back on the table?

Well, ya.. I do get how the money flows to the Military Contractors.... but this law is unconstitutional.

[Rwolf]

21. The proposed NDAA for 2013 doesn’t clarify what constitutes a (belligerent)

The proposed NDAA for 2013 doesn’t clarify what constitutes a (belligerent).
Under the vague provisions of NDAA 2012 and 2013 the President could accuse anyone of being a (belligerent) e.g. (directly aligned with militants or supporting hostilities against the United Stated or one of its allies (by mere political or other association); any activity, statement, writing or communication to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans. Writers, journalists, Americans that disagree with or question U.S. Government or its allies—may under NDAA be subject to arrest and indefinite detention. Hitler used similar laws to intimidate and shut down the press when it opposed the Nazis. Is that where Obama is going?

[CitizenPatriot]

5. "he awarded himself"?

I was unaware that Obama was a senator currently.

they do realize he doesn't have line item veto powers, right? that he had to fund the military and he issued the signing statement to inform how the law would be interpreted under his administration. He also made them go back and redo this POS so it was less egregious than when they started?

RT ... Sorry. I'll read the NYT. Serious issue that needs to be addressed but not by people who don't even understand how our government works.

[rhett o rick]

10. Bullcrap. If he signs is he buys it. nm

[just1voice]

19. Sure are a lot of RT bashers

Ever even watch it? It blows the doors off of the corrupt U.S. media.

[green for victory]

22. us media is utterly worthless

[Vattel]

6. The government does not have the right to detain citizens indefinitely without habeas & due process.

Fuck anyone who thinks otherwise.

[rhett o rick]

11. LOL. Are you being sarcastic? The government has detained citizens indefinitely w/o habeas corpus.

Where have you been. And when you say, "Fuck anyone who thinks otherwise." you show that you are not very opened minded to counter opinions. Kinda like our friends on the right.

[Vattel]

23. You need to distinguish doing something and having a right to do it.

A more interesting counterargument would be taken more seriously.

[rhett o rick]

25. My point is that if we citizens dont care that the government is walking on our rights

then it really doesnt matter if they "dont have a right to do it." The American people have looked the other way while our government violates the Constitution via the Patriot Act, FISA spying, and indefinite detention. No uproar when Bush did it and then when Pres Obama gets elected, no remedy.

[green for victory]

26. The American people have looked the other way while our government violates the Constitution

*not* This American.

There Was an uproar when bush did it. You didn't hear it.

[rhett o rick]

27. Not sure why you think that you need to tell me that. I was of course

referring to the vast majority of Americans. In the last election we didnt even have a candidate that was dedicated to reinforce the Constitution. In addition, approx 68% of eligible voters DID NOT VOTE FOR Pres Obama's reelection.

We must get the message out.

[Vattel]

28. Sorry, I missed your point. I guess we agree.

[rhett o rick]

29. Sometimes my points are a little hard to follow. At least for myself.

My point is that it isnt enough for the Constitution or a law to declare something if we dont honor it and enforce it.

The Constitution does not allow indefinite detention of citizens. Yet Georgie Bush arrested, detained and tortured in broad daylight and the American people (most) didnt give a shit. And further the Super Supreme Court didnt give a shit also.

[Fire Walk With Me]

14. George Takei is one of many Japanese US citizens who spent years in US prison camps during WWII.

Oh my.

[Fire Walk With Me]

7. Obama did not have to sign this monstrosity. He also didn't have to send lawyers to reinstate it

after section 1021 regarding indefinite detention was struck down as unConstitutional via a lawsuit by Chris Hedges and others. Combined with HR347 and the increasing police state about which he's said nothing, done nothing to counter, activists and journalists are rightly frightened for their freedom. Indefinite detention without trial never left!

Those who have marched with Occupy and other freedom fighters already understand that the Bill of Rights is gone. Extending the Patriot Act confused the hell out of me. Why, Obama?

[rhett o rick]

12. Those of us that thought that when we got a Democrat in the presidency, what Bush screwed up would

be set right, were naive fools. He clearly doesnt want to give up his power.

[democrattotheend]

20. Did he sign it this year

I read a month ago that he promised to veto it, although he had promised to do so in the past and then didn't. But has he signed the latest one?

[tammywammy]

24. No, the 2012 NDAA has not been signed.

It just came out of reconciliation between chambers Tuesday night and I believe the House passed the final version yesterday or day before. I haven't read that the Senate has voted on it. There are two main things that Panetta & Obama threatened veto over - Gitmo and MEADS funding.

edited to correct 2013 to 2012. It's a bill from 2012 covering fiscal year 2013 funding.

Found an article, it has passed the Senate. Obama hasn't signed it, but he didn't sign last year's until 31 Dec.

[blkmusclmachine]

8. Obama WANTS Indefinite Detention in the bill.

No more Eyes Wide Shut

.

[rhett o rick]

30. Would you expect a president to give away power? nm

[azurnoir]

9. well election season is indeed over it seems

back to real business

[Fire Walk With Me]

15. You don't know about NDAA section 1021, HR347, the Patriot Act extension, etc.?

You speak as if you do and that it is a trifle. Go march with Occupy or unions or any freedom fighters and get beaten up by cops and you'll learn very quickly that things are not as they seem in this country and that they must immediately be brought back to Constitutional values. Obama said to Egypt at the beginning of the Arab Spring, to respect and treat well their protesters. Since then, 7400+ US Occupiers have been beaten and arrested with not a single peep from the white house. Silence is complicity. Worse; DHS has been "watching" Occupy from day one, according to FOI-attained documents. A DHS head, Peter King, outright calls Occupy "losers". With friendly federal agencies such as this against the Bill of Rights...

Did you see the articles this week regarding hidden microphones on public buses to record conversations, or armed SWAT teams in Arkansas who are going to "protect" citizens by asking for ID? Or the 64 drone bases being built inside the US from which to "monitor" us because we're obviously all terrorists (or, because someone is becoming ludicrously rich through selling these technologies?)...

[azurnoir]

16. no I was simply being circumspect in my reply n/t

[cstanleytech]

13. What we really need need is scotus to rule it

unconstitutional once and for one all (unlikely with the current court majority who kiss the ring of the GOP) or better yet a constitutional amendment to ban it but sadly both of those things are unlikely to happen.

[struggle4progress]

18. not a frickin chance with this scotus. and since 9/11 the courts have usually been pretty wimpy on

stuff like this

tortured by the cia? tough shizz (say the us courts): national security comes first

[rhett o rick]

31. I think they have had two chances to rule on it and have blundered both times. nm

[Is That All There Is]

17. You came for Their

2nd Amendment rights and others took your 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th when you were not looking. Good bargain, remember, what you may like in the Constitution others may not. When you open the Document for your interpretation, it gives license to others as well. Sometimes really nasty dirty scoundrels.

[rhett o rick]

32. No one "opened the Document for interpretation," The Constitution has been open for

interpretation from the beginning. And opened for the SCOTUS interpretation since Marbuy vs. Madison.