BREAKING: NDAA is now law!

[kah13176]

http://www.ldnews.com/national/ci_19652743

HONOLULU—President Barack Obama signed a wide-ranging defense bill into law Saturday despite having "serious reservations" about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

The bill also applies penalties against Iran's central bank in an effort to hamper Tehran's ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration is looking to soften the impact of those penalties because of concerns that they could lead to a spike in global oil prices or cause economic hardship on U.S. allies that import petroleum from Iran.

In a statement accompanying his signature, the president chastised some lawmakers for what he contended was their attempts to use the bill to restrict the ability of counterterrorism officials to protect the country.

Also: http://www.npr.org/2011/12/31/144524...h-reservations

[bolil]

lovely. If someone that supports liberty but is also violent and bombs something (or framed or whatever) where does that leave us?

[Aratus]

this is a bad law. he is an idiot.
we need a plank in the party platform
demanding our BILL OF RIGHTs back.
i would have had more respect for him
had he vetoed the bill he signed.

[kah13176]

This happened ~3 hours ago, and there are only TWO news articles about this, from the AP and a local news agency!

If some dumb-ass celebrity died, we'd have hundreds of articles in minutes.

Edit: Now they're starting to come in, but not on the front pages of Google News.

[Bosco Warden]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1...resident-Obama

[aGameOfThrones]

This happened ~3 hours ago, and there are only TWO news articles about this, from the AP and a local news agency!

If some dumb-ass celebrity died, we'd have hundreds of articles in minutes.

Edit: Now they're starting to come in, but not on the front pages of Google News.

People care more about celebrities than their freedoms.

[JoshLowry]

Null and void meme needs to be created

[Sola_Fide]

Null and void meme needs to be created

Sounds like a terrorist activity to me. Are you anti-government?


Reported.

[RileyE104]

"But it doesn't include the provision for American citizens anymore, my Congressman said!!"

[puppetmaster]

will this stand up to SCOTUS?

If not, the treason charges should be brought against all who voted and signed into law.

[Aratus]

where is someone like john marshall in our hour of need?

[Anti Federalist]

lovely. If someone that supports liberty but is also violent and bombs something (or framed or whatever) where does that leave us?

As a material supporter of terrorism, subject to indefinite detention, or rendition for torture and execution.

Is everybody getting the point now?

Is it becoming clear how dangerous this is?

The $#@! is real.

[sluggo]

I hope Gitmo has cable.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I don't even... people are spinning this as if Obama wants to restrict the detention aspects of the bill, when he clearly states in his signing statement that he is concerned that they restrict them?

This is $#@!ing Bizarro World.

[Aratus]

He signed it. It will over time destroy our Bill of Rights and set up a Seven Days in May junta like Chile in the 1970s.
We need another soul in the White House and the ability to get congress to vote for the bill that negates this bill's
horrific features. we need to get as involved in the public sphere we can in the very best way so as to bring back
our Bill of Rights. there is still time before the jackboots stomp in unison on our pavements in a sad fascist manner.

[John F Kennedy III]

Was there a final version of the bill that passed the House and Senate or did they use the recent Senate vote along with the House vote in May?

I need to look at how everyone voted if it was a new version.

[James Madison]

Sounds like a terrorist activity to me. Are you anti-government?


Reported.

Good work, mundane. Here's your fluoride.

[libertyfan101]

The signing statements is such a joke. Obama : "I promise to not violate your rights even though I was the one that wanted to do it in the first place."

[shelskov]

According to my Congressman (Stephen Fincher, TN) he claims that the language "this section does not apply to US Citizens or Residents" that was NOT in the Senate version but WAS in the House version was INCLUDED in the reconciliation process and thus the final Bill. Take that for what it's worth, but that is what he claimed in an email to me when I asked him what was going on with this bill. I will look at the THOMAS website to check when I have some more time later tonight.

[Lothario]

As Adam Kokesh said in a video - sure signing the bill is a flagrant slap in the face to America, but really, who cares whether it is "signed" into law or not...the White House already does whatever it wants. Awlaki was a US citizen and assassinated well before this law was instituted.

[kylejack]

Obama said as he was signing it that he had 'serious reservations'. Has anyone told him that he has a veto power?!

[kylejack]

As Adam Kokesh said in a video - sure signing the bill is a flagrant slap in the face to America, but really, who cares whether it is "signed" into law or not...the White House already does whatever it wants. Awlaki was a US citizen and assassinated well before this law was instituted.

It also places harsh sanctions on Iran. This was a bad bill all around.

[Aratus]

its a horrid bill he was told is politically expediant.

[Medevila]

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."

[A Son of Liberty]

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

[kylejack]

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."

1021 exempts Americans from the requirement of the administration to detain. 1022 just allows them to detain, though, and doesn't exempt Americans.

[amabala]

http://www.ldnews.com/national/ci_19652743



Also: http://www.npr.org/2011/12/31/144524...h-reservations

He had serious reservations? Yeah, right. What joke.

[Medevila]

1021 exempts Americans from the requirement of the administration to detain. 1022 just allows them to detain, though, and doesn't exempt Americans.

Not that I don't believe you, but any citation on this? I don't have the final bill readily available.

[kylejack]

Not that I don't believe you, but any citation on this? I don't have the final bill readily available.

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 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.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined--

(A) to be 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.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.

(e) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/text

[Icymudpuppy]

Even if it did exempt American Citizens, it would still be a violation of the Bill of rights. The 5th and 14th Amendment are pretty clear that "no PERSON shall be deprived of life LIBERTY or property without due process of law".