# US Senate votes to authorize indefinite detentions **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 2, 2011, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-senate-votes-to-authorize-indefinite-detentions/604778 "2011-12-02T01:54:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-senate-votes-to-authorize-indefinite-detentions/604778/61 "2011-12-15T23:23:26Z")
No, you really don’t see now. Well maybe you do, in which case write to Dianne Feinstein and FBI director, Robert Mueller to put them right. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2011, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-senate-votes-to-authorize-indefinite-detentions/604778/62 "2011-12-15T23:51:25Z")
An American al qaeda fighter who is found to be planning a plot against the US can be indefinitely detained under this law (basically). That same American can challenge his detention using the writ of habaes corpus stating there is no legal basis for his detention (ie, this new law does not apply to me because x, y, z). You should still have the same level of hate, I’m not disagreeing with you, but it shouldn’t be because this law now strips you of your right to use the writ of habeas corpus to challenge your detention. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-senate-votes-to-authorize-indefinite-detentions/604778/63 "2011-12-16T06:42:35Z")
You don’t need to be any kind of “fighter”. I guess you have comprehension issues because the article is quite clear. It’s difficult to see what the issue is given the USA already imprisons more people per capita than any other country in the world: > [@](#): > > While Americans only represent about 5 percent of the world’s population, one-quarter of the entire world’s inmates are incarcerated in the United States > **[United States incarceration rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate)** > > The United States in 2022 had the fifth highest incarceration rate in the world, at 541 people per 100,000. Between 2019 and 2020, the United States saw a significant drop in the total number of incarcerations. State and federal prison and local jail incarcerations dropped by 14% from 2.1 million in 2019 to 1.8 million in mid-2020. The incarceration total has risen since then. In 2018, the United States had the highest incarceration rate in the world. > While the United States represented about... ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-senate-votes-to-authorize-indefinite-detentions/604778/64 "2011-12-16T17:51:04Z")
> [@PrettyVacant](#): > > You don’t need to be any kind of “fighter”. I guess you have comprehension issues because the article is quite clear. Apparently I do. Can you direct me to the part of the article (or any source) that talks about stripping us of our right to habeas corpus? Just so we’re clear, habeas is just a tool to challenge a detention (you use it after you are detained); having it or not having it doesn’t have anything to do with the legal ability for the Gov’t to actually detain someone. What was happening 2002-2006ish was the Gov’t was detaining people AND not letting them challenge their detention using habeas corpus. Now they can challenge their detention, and if the court says yes, the AUMF applies to you, then they stay detained. If the court says, no, the AUMF (or any legal authority) applies to you, then there is no legal reason why you should be detained and you should be released. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-senate-votes-to-authorize-indefinite-detentions/604778/65 "2011-12-16T21:52:20Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > Apparently I do. Can you direct me to the part of the article (or any source) that talks about stripping us of our right to habeas corpus? > > Just so we’re clear, habeas is just a tool to challenge a detention (you use it after you are detained); having it or not having it doesn’t have anything to do with the legal ability for the Gov’t to actually detain someone. > > What was happening 2002-2006ish was the Gov’t was detaining people AND not letting them challenge their detention using habeas corpus. Now they can challenge their detention, and if the court says yes, the AUMF applies to you, then they stay detained. If the court says, no, the AUMF (or any legal authority) applies to you, then there is no legal reason why you should be detained and you should be released. According to Senator Graham, you’d be denied access to a lawyer so challenging anything would be difficult. [QUOTE=NY Times] Citizens who are suspected of joining Al Qaeda are opening themselves up “to imprisonment and death,” Mr. Graham said, adding, “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them: ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer. You are an enemy combatant, and we are going to talk to you about why you joined Al Qaeda.’ [/QUOTE] Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2011, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-senate-votes-to-authorize-indefinite-detentions/604778/66 "2011-12-16T22:39:29Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > According to Senator Graham, you’d be denied access to a lawyer so challenging anything would be difficult. > > Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. Hopefully so. What a mess. I think Senator Graham’s quote is regarding a this is not an evidence gathering interrogation (police action), but an intelligence gathering interrogation (war). I’d be curious to know how long he implied you would not have access to a lawyer. Because yes, in practice not having access to a lawyer means not having access to the legal tools available to you. Feinstein introduced a new bill yesterday, the Due Process Guarantee Act, that would disallow the detention of Citizens captured on US soil unless Congress explicitly says you can be detained. Congress has not said in the AUMF, nor the NDAA, that a citizen can be detained when captured on US soil (both are silent - the NDAA states current laws/court rulings are controlling). ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2011, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-senate-votes-to-authorize-indefinite-detentions/604778/67 "2011-12-17T10:24:56Z")
> [@](#): > > NY Times > Citizens who are suspected of joining Al Qaeda “Suspected” by whom? You know that judgement doesn’t judicial oversight, or any legitimate independent oversight. ---
**Author:** ![koufax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@koufax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/koufax)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-senate-votes-to-authorize-indefinite-detentions/604778/68 "2011-12-29T17:08:21Z")
Did Obama sign this bill? ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-senate-votes-to-authorize-indefinite-detentions/604778/69 "2011-12-30T04:19:34Z")
Not signed yet. He still has a few more days. Probably do it on NYE or something. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-senate-votes-to-authorize-indefinite-detentions/604778/70 "2011-12-31T22:44:21Z")
Signed today. Boring [Wiki overview.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012) ---
**Author:** ![RandMcnally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b782af/32.png) [@RandMcnally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandMcnally)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-senate-votes-to-authorize-indefinite-detentions/604778/71 "2011-12-31T23:17:29Z")
What are the odds that the Supreme Court strikes this down? ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-senate-votes-to-authorize-indefinite-detentions/604778/72 "2011-12-31T23:32:41Z")
About zero. Most of the controversial stuff is rulings they’ve already made (holding an American in military custody caught overseas, ect.). This bill basically says the law is what the courts have previously said it is (and all the uncertainty court rulings entail). So, some stuff is still undecided (e.g., An American caught on US soil), so if the SC later says you can’t hold Americans in military custody caught on American soil, that’s not striking this bill down, because this bill doesn’t authorize that (although it also does not disallow it). Obama said in the signing statement he would not do that as a matter of policy. While there is no clear answer, it’s unlikely a court would allow that. The SC had a chance to make that clear in the [Padilla case](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld_v._Padilla), but they punted on that issue. Other court rulings have suggested this is not allowed. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2012, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-senate-votes-to-authorize-indefinite-detentions/604778/73 "2012-01-01T13:37:15Z")
“Signing statement”? What’s a “signing statement”? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2012, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-senate-votes-to-authorize-indefinite-detentions/604778/74 "2012-01-01T14:44:01Z")
Some people are really not taking this well … > **[Why Obama Needs To Indefinitely Detain YOU!](http://actingwhite.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-obama-needs-to-indefinitely-detain.html)** > > The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) et al Movement is leaderless, fragmented, and muddled in what it seemingly wants from those of various authorit... > **[Why Obama May Lose in 2012](http://actingwhite.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-obama-may-lose-in-2012.html)** > > It’s an outrageous thing for a bunch of predominantly white senators and congresspersons to piss on the constitution, via NDAA 1031 legisl... > [@](#): > > James C. Collier said… > > ``` > atidude: I have come to expect powerful white people to take positions that ignore the sordid mistreatment of US blacks, including a history of profiling, indefinite detainment, racial justice, etc. For Obama to mimic this ignorance, while identifying as black, is unconscionable. For the Black Caucus to go along, even worse. Call it Black-on-Black racism. White-on-Black racism, yes. Indeed, it is racist to enact legislation that will knowingly & disproportionately burden a group, via their race. The implications for race are huge, beginning with 'what is a terrorist?', a dark-skinned person with an attitude? > 5:26 PM > > ``` [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-senate-votes-to-authorize-indefinite-detentions/604778.md?page=3)