Indefinite Detention of Americans in Military Spending Bill?

[marmar]

Indefinite Detention of Americans in Military Spending Bill?
The ACLU says its in the bill; Tea Partiers say it is not.


Does the new Defense Authorization Bill, S. 1867, slated to come up for a vote this week contain indefinite detention of Americans at home?

The ACLU says it does. An article on a prominent Tea Party website says it does not. And letter writers to both sites -- and others reporting on the ACLU's remarks -- say you can't trust whatever the federal government might do. But what is really in the National Defense Authorization Act?

A widely quoted ACLU mailing reads: "In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.” "

But the Tea Party article, highlighted on libertarian GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul's website, quoting the legislation, said a "covered person" is "(A) ...a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners." Continuing, it said, "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States... (and) a lawful resident alien." ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/740456/indefinite_detention_of_americans_in_military_spending_bill/

[peacebird]

1. Will Obama sign that into law? Or will he negate that part with a signing statement?

[Autumn]

2. The White House and one can say Obama, since he is the

current occupant, support it. So don't count on a signing statement.

[msongs]

3. don't count on the transparency and freedom thingy. bush agenda marches on nt

[Autumn]

4. I count on nothing from this administration,

and certainly not transparency.

[pinboy3niner]

8. ACLU: WH, SecDef, AG oppose it and "The White House has even threatened a veto"

The answer on why now is nothing more than election season politics. The White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act are harmful and counterproductive. The White House has even threatened a veto. But Senate politics has propelled this bad legislation to the Senate floor.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

[TheKentuckian]

6. Veto or nothing, there is no line item so a signing statement would only cover the current admin

and would essentially be that this Administration doesn't interpret the law as Congress does and won't enforce the parts they don't see fit to.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Why our benevolent, freedom loving, government wouldn't dream of imprisoning it's own citizens.

[woo me with science]

7. Nowhere does the bill PROHIBIT detention of US citizens.

It merely says that doing so is not a REQUIREMENT.

[pinboy3niner]

9. Yes--and the ACLU elaborates in its update:

UPDATE: Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1013 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

[Solly Mack]

10. Thank you for adding that.