Point me in the right direction (NDAA related)

[rideurlightning]

I have been told that the indefinite detention clause of NDAA does not apply to American citizens, because it is explicitly stated in the law that U.S. citizens are exempt; at the same, I have heard that there are loopholes that actually do allow the indefinite detention of American citizens. Could someone explain, and point out a source to me so I can rebut the first argument? Thanks.

[Lucille]

Glenn Greenwald:


The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/): only from the requirement of military detention.

Judge Forrest:


"There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment," Forrest wrote in granting the temporary injunction (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/08/ndaa_suit_argue.php). "There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention."

Chris Hedges:


The decision to vigorously fight Forrest’s ruling is a further example of the Obama White House’s steady and relentless assault against civil liberties, an assault that is more severe than that carried out by George W. Bush. Obama has refused to restore habeas corpus. He supports the FISA Amendment Act, which retroactively makes legal what under our Constitution has traditionally been illegal—warrantless wire tapping, eavesdropping and monitoring directed against U.S. citizens. He has used the Espionage Act six times against whistle-blowers who have exposed government crimes, including war crimes, to the public. He interprets the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act as giving him the authority to assassinate U.S. citizens, as he did the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. And now he wants the right to use the armed forces to throw U.S. citizens into military prisons, where they will have no right to a trial and no defined length of detention (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/we_won_--_for_now_20120917/).

Also, if it didn't apply to American citizens, the Smith-Amash amendment (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/political-potpourri/2012/may/18/paul-amash-amendment-and-ndaa-loss-and-win-liberty/) wouldn't have been defeated by the due process-hating "conservatives (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll270.xml)" in CONgress.


In response to this act and the passage of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, which again contains these provisions, an unlikely alliance of libertarian Republicans and liberal Democrats confronted their House colleagues today in support of an amendment supported by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and introduced by Reps. Adam Smith (D-Washington) and Justin Amash (R-Michigan).

This amendment would have banned indefinite detention of United States citizens. It gained significant traction after Judge Forrest’s ruling, but faced serious opposition from congressional leaders who believe that being accused of a crime equates to “waging war against America.” Despite Amash’s passionate closing statements, the amendment failed this morning, 182-238. Only nineteen conservative and libertarian Republicans joined 163 Democrats in voting "yes" to preserving due process and habeas corpus.

[tsai3904]

Here's some info from Justin Amash:

http://www.facebook.com/notes/justin-amash/the-truth-about-the-new-detainee-policy-in-the-national-defense-authorization-ac/296584837047596

http://amash.house.gov/sites/amash.house.gov/files/NDAA%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf