General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFederal Judge Dismisses NDAA Indefinite Detention Lawsuit
I know this ruling isn't the 'latest' breaking news and yet I don't remember
seeing this video posted. I'm old....indulge me if it has! Thanks!
I wonder if this NDAA stuff could apply to Edward Snowden were he to come
back into the U.S. Holder's 'promise' to Russia not to seek the death penalty
would seem a bit moot if the NDAA was used. Snowden would then exist in
a no man's legal hell. Could he be regarded as a terrorist? imho
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)'signing statement' I get kind of nervous.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)December 31, 2011
... Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "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." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, 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. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are "captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa'ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.
I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)post facts.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)and 2011 is light years ago. I'm sorry but I've heard too many 'promises'
and until the NDAA is tested, heaven help the defendent, I will pose no
confidence.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)did you see their hard hitting expose on Putin's oppression of the LGBT community in Russia?
Of course you didn't.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Russia. I've lived long enough to realize no place is perfect. Russia isn't
and neither is the U.S. Hopefully, Russia Today will come around. It
took a lot of concerted efforts and l.o.n.g. time in this country to accept
LGBT rights....and it's no where complete....yet.
Hammer my source....listen to the message. Are you familiar with the
term, "Ugly American"? Your slip is showing.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)repressing us.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)RT is light years ahead of network and cable news here.
Never? There was a time I would 'never' have believed of
the break-up of the U.S.S.R.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)nt
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Russia is worse! Russia is worse!
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Case in point....in a very small way, of course. Thanks.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)the resources they suck up while they waste their lives grubbing around chasing whatever they're told will make them happy.
I used to care a great deal for my fellow man, then I lived long enough to meet them.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)"....then I lived long enough to meet them." How true!
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)It says that, both in section 1021 and section 1022.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)See this article: NDAA 2013 Allows Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens by President
http://www.policymic.com/articles/22288/ndaa-2013-allows-indefinite-detention-of-u-s-citizens-by-president
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)served several terms in a state legislature, served in the Federal Senate, and has been President of the US for over four years now -- or the nice college senior, who doesn't believe he knows what he's talking about?