NDAA and Indefinite Detention: Someone please clear this up for me

[Wolf]

Today I watched Ron Paul's floor speech calling to repeal section 1021 of the NDAA 2012. The subject horrified me. I decided to look into it. So I read the text of it, and I read the revisions.

I've read Obama's promise about his administration never using it against a US citizen.
I've read that it could legally be used against any US citizen.
I've read that it could only be used against a US citizen abroad.
I've read that it's not even a new power, as 2001's Authorization the Use of Military Force granted the same power.

My head is spinning.

I don't know how to interpret it. See, the problem is this : "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." I'm a 20 year old chemistry major; I'm not familiar with all existing law on this matter. And every article I read is telling me something different.

I thought I read a pretty convincing article here. But if the law really cannot at all apply to US citizens, why is Paul moving to repeal it? I'm a huge supporter of Ron Paul, but I'm not willing to take everything he says as absolute fact. I like to read the other sides of issues and decide for myself. Only in this case, I am torn.

[CaptainAmerica]

It means that the president is now potentially the next hitler

[BigByrd47119]

The part where he said he would not use it on American citizens is BS. He did it as a signing statement which neither he, nor any other POTUS, has any responsibility or obligation to abide by.

[alucard13mmfmj]

why do we even have that in the bill if it wont be used... seems like a waste of time and waste of tax dollars to include something that wont be used. of course it will be used. it is like getting an explosive vest put on us and being told that it wont be detonated. *boom*

[HeyArchie]

Have you guys seen the new bill that can strip people of their citizenship?

http://rt.com/usa/news/expatriation-...ship-ndaa-737/

[ryanmkeisling]

The people who compose these bills, essentially neoconservative policy makers (the sponsors are figure heads) are living outside the rule of law. They are creating laws steeped in confusing legalese so that they will have a broad umbrella of authority when it comes to the judiciary, if they were to do something that could be illegal. The patriot act was a similar piece of legislation.

[Wolf]

I know the statement Obama made doesn't legally mean anything. I only referenced it to show that there is so much confusion over this and everyone thinks it means something different.

My point is I'm not sure what power this act legally gives the president. I really want someone to clear that up for me.

[Wolf]

The people who compose these bills, essentially neoconservative policy makers (the sponsors are figure heads) are living outside the rule of law. They are creating laws steeped in confusing legalese so that they will have a broad umbrella of authority when it comes to the judiciary, if they were to do something that could be illegal. The patriot act was a similar piece of legislation.

So you think it could be interpreted a number of ways, right? Based on "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" it could mean that our president could detain any citizen, abroad or home, or it could mean that he couldn't.

[HeyArchie]

I know the statement Obama made doesn't legally mean anything. I only referenced it to show that there is so much confusion over this and everyone thinks it means something different.

My point is I'm not sure what power this act legally gives the president. I really want someone to clear that up for me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it means that any US citizen can be detained indefinitely without a lawyer and without due process for being considered a "hostility."

[CaptainAmerica]

Have you guys seen the new bill that can strip people of their citizenship?

http://rt.com/usa/news/expatriation-...ship-ndaa-737/

Kind of reminds me of something that occurred in 1861...what could that be that we are headed for?

[Wolf]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it means that any US citizen can be detained indefinitely without a lawyer and without due process for being considered a "hostility."

That's what I thought before I began reading articles explaining why it cannot legally apply to US citizens.

[BigByrd47119]

I know the statement Obama made doesn't legally mean anything. I only referenced it to show that there is so much confusion over this and everyone thinks it means something different.

My point is I'm not sure what power this act legally gives the president. I really want someone to clear that up for me.

To decipher these types of acts, you need to have a Supreme Court .

The Obama admin. originally promised to veto the act because of the very portion in question. Then the fact that he added said signing statement leads me to believe that the general consensus is that it will indeed allow for American citizens to be detained indefinitely for nothing more than suspicion.

This pretty much sums it up for me. Watch this and see what you think its intentions are...


If someone has the video of whats-his-face saying, "If they ask for a lawyer tell them to Shut up, you don't get a lawyer," or whatever it was he said, would you kindly post it here?

[HeyArchie]

That's what I thought before I began reading articles explaining why it cannot legally apply to US citizens.

Oh well they are taking care of that with the new bill they're trying to pass (see my earlier post)

[affa]

That's what I thought before I began reading articles explaining why it cannot legally apply to US citizens.

The articles are incorrect. Basically, those who seek to undermine our Constitution immediately started 'spinning' the story, and various pressitutes released articles about why it doesn't affect US Citizens. All of them quote one section which excludes US Citizens... and none of them discuss the offending section that is so bothersome.

Section 1022 does NOT contain the same disclaimer that section 1021 does, and in fact, is in direct regards to the applicability of the NDAA to US Citizens. It reads:
(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.

See, the problem is, in other sections they CLEARLY state US Citizens are not subject to this, that, or the other thing. BUT... when it got to indefinite detention, rather than clearly state we are not subject to it, it instead says that the military is not "required" to hold us indefinitely.

However, in common English, if you say someone isn't required to do something, it implicitly means they CAN do it if they want.

Here is a good article on the subject:
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/thre...etention_bill/


The issue here is that it leaves the door open. They had a chance to rewrite this, and they did not. In fact, it was pretty clear on the floor that McCain and others wanted it to apply to US Citizens, and some actually said it did.

[Wolf]

The articles are incorrect. Basically, those who seek to undermine our Constitution immediately started 'spinning' the story, and various pressitutes released articles about why it doesn't affect US Citizens. All of them quote one section which excludes US Citizens... and none of them discuss the offending section that is so bothersome.

Section 1022 does NOT contain the same disclaimer that section 1021 does, and in fact, is in direct regards to the applicability of the NDAA to US Citizens. It reads:
(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.

See, the problem is, in other sections they CLEARLY state US Citizens are not subject to this, that, or the other thing. BUT... when it got to indefinite detention, rather than clearly state we are not subject to it, it instead says that the military is not "required" to hold us indefinitely.

However, in common English, if you say someone isn't required to do something, it implicitly means they CAN do it if they want.

Here is a good article on the subject:
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/thre...etention_bill/


The issue here is that it leaves the door open. They had a chance to rewrite this, and they did not. In fact, it was pretty clear on the floor that McCain and others wanted it to apply to US Citizens, and some actually said it did.

Thank you! This is exactly what I was looking for.

[dfalken]

All you really need to know to know that it is a bad for the population is that it was passed on New Year's Eve. Typical tactic of sneaking by controversial legislation when nobody is looking.

[gte811i]

Arg. This subject is very frustrating. So much confusion exists because people don't read the dang bill. The bill is here:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...2hr1540enr.pdf

Read sections 1021 and 1022.
Section 1021
In section 1021 it very clearly states that if a person (US citizen or not) is deemed to be a member of Al Qaeda, a member of an "associated force" (whatever the heck that is!) or has committed "belligerent" acts (again whatever that is) they can be detained until the end of hostilities (war on terror = never-ending war = indefinite detention).

It then gives a list of approved courses of action for those individuals who are detained - 4 actions are given. 1 of which is indefinite detention another is military court.

Section 1022
This section describes what to do with individuals caught during hostilities (i.e. actual fighting --in Iraq or Afganistan) . . .basically in a battle. It requires those individuals to be prosecuted by a military court --- EXCEPT if they are US citizens . . . then they may be prosecuted by a military court but it is not required. Even if they are not prosecuted by a military court they can still be held indefinitely without trail according to Section 1021. Basically section 1022 removes 1 of 4 actions given in section 1021 for US citizens caught in a battle overseas.

The president's signing statement is irrelevant to the law . . . it states how HE intends to use it but it is not binding on future presidents.

The long and short is YES, YES, YES. American citizens can be detained indefinitely without trail, without lawyer if the government determines they are part of an "associated force" and/or "belligerent"

Please do not let any stupid news article you've read tell you otherwise- half of the journalist are just parroting what some congresscritter said vs. reading the bill.

Go read the bill. Read both Section 1021 & 1022.

Oh and the bill codifies the authority that the President already assumed was implicit in the 2001 act. See Jose Padilla (no authority existed the president just assumed it was there--this bill codifies that assumed authority).

horrible piece of legislation!!

[gte811i]

--dup post

[affa]

The president's signing statement is irrelevant to the law . . . it states how HE intends to use it but it is not binding on future presidents.

and, to be extra clear about this... it's not even binding to Obama.

[sailingaway]

I know the statement Obama made doesn't legally mean anything. I only referenced it to show that there is so much confusion over this and everyone thinks it means something different.

My point is I'm not sure what power this act legally gives the president. I really want someone to clear that up for me.

It is unconstitutional so it isn't 'legal' but it doesn't matter if you are taken without lawyer or trial, your saying it is illegal is never heard.

[mosquitobite]

It means that the president is now potentially the next hitler

[Wolf]

Arg. This subject is very frustrating. So much confusion exists because people don't read the dang bill. The bill is here:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...2hr1540enr.pdf

Read sections 1021 and 1022.
Section 1021
In section 1021 it very clearly states that if a person (US citizen or not) is deemed to be a member of Al Qaeda, a member of an "associated force" (whatever the heck that is!) or has committed "belligerent" acts (again whatever that is) they can be detained until the end of hostilities (war on terror = never-ending war = indefinite detention).

It then gives a list of approved courses of action for those individuals who are detained - 4 actions are given. 1 of which is indefinite detention another is military court.

Section 1022
This section describes what to do with individuals caught during hostilities (i.e. actual fighting --in Iraq or Afganistan) . . .basically in a battle. It requires those individuals to be prosecuted by a military court --- EXCEPT if they are US citizens . . . then they may be prosecuted by a military court but it is not required. Even if they are not prosecuted by a military court they can still be held indefinitely without trail according to Section 1021. Basically section 1022 removes 1 of 4 actions given in section 1021 for US citizens caught in a battle overseas.

The president's signing statement is irrelevant to the law . . . it states how HE intends to use it but it is not binding on future presidents.

The long and short is YES, YES, YES. American citizens can be detained indefinitely without trail, without lawyer if the government determines they are part of an "associated force" and/or "belligerent"

Please do not let any stupid news article you've read tell you otherwise- half of the journalist are just parroting what some congresscritter said vs. reading the bill.

Go read the bill. Read both Section 1021 & 1022.

Oh and the bill codifies the authority that the President already assumed was implicit in the 2001 act. See Jose Padilla (no authority existed the president just assumed it was there--this bill codifies that assumed authority).

horrible piece of legislation!!

I don't understand why your answer had to be so condescending, but I guess that's the internet. Like I said, I have read the bill. Thanks for your input.

[Occam's Banana]

I know the statement Obama made doesn't legally mean anything. I only referenced it to show that there is so much confusion over this and everyone thinks it means something different.

My point is I'm not sure what power this act legally gives the president. I really want someone to clear that up for me.

Such confusion is *exactly* what is intended by the authors of legislation like this.

They deliberately use vague language & ill-defined terms in order to make the law "mean" whatever the system wants it to mean at any particular moment.

Ron Paul calls them out for this BS. See his anti-NDAA floor speech @ 1:45:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg69QM1yXQQ

[gte811i]

I don't understand why your answer had to be so condescending, but I guess that's the internet. Like I said, I have read the bill. Thanks for your input.

Umm . . . okay I'm just curious at what point am I condescending to you? I did not call you (specifically) out on not reading the bill. I said much confusion exists because you (in general) i.e. people i.e. journalists don't read the bill. I apologize, next time I'll use more generic terms like one or individuals, etc.

This bill is actually quite clear; it is pundents, journalist, congresscritters etc. who make it very confusing. Many bills have things like section a replaces section b from bill xyz with strike outs that make it very confusing; this one has nothing of the sort. The sections are very well contained.

Most people just read what some journalist has written which is taken from gathering opinions of senators, or whoever else in determining what a bill means, mixed with interpretation of what they think the bill means, etc.

I guess it's the internet when people take offense too easily (shrugs shoulders).

So now that people here have explained what the bill does (and I'm sure others have done so more than I have in a non-condescending way).

My question to you is what would it take for you to believe (if you do not already) that this bill gives the president authority to take a US citizen accuse them of a belligerent act against the US, detain them, and without jury trial lock them away indefinitely?

I believe the bill highly unconstitutional . . . but that doesn't matter yet.

Again sorry for whatever condescending remarks; this bill is a pet peeve of mine, I hate it with a passion.