US Senate votes to authorize indefinite detentions

[Bricker]

@Little_Nemo

I really tried to avoid pointing the finger here. But c’mon let’s face the facts, we all know which presidential administration we have to thank for this.

Yes.

Maybe the Dmeocrats will stop lionizing FDR now.

[Giles]

@Little_Nemo

I really tried to avoid pointing the finger here. But c’mon let’s face the facts, we all know which presidential administration we have to thank for this.

@Bricker

Yes.

Maybe the Dmeocrats will stop lionizing FDR now.

So, you guys think Willkie (who went on after the 1940 election to work for FDR) would not have interned the Japanese Americans?

[WillFarnaby]

@Giles

So, you guys think Willkie (who went on after the 1940 election to work for FDR) would not have interned the Japanese Americans?

I’m not defending Japanese internment, but there is a difference between these two situations.

The war with Japan had a definite goal. This conflict does not. We don’t even have a declared war against the people we are detaining.

[Lemur866]

@Bricker

Yes.

Maybe the Dmeocrats will stop lionizing FDR now.

So are you in favor of indefinite detention, or not? This is why people get annoyed with you Bricker. Anything else to offer than a tu quoque? Does the vote on this issue change your opinion of any Republican who voted for it?

[Bryan_Ekers]

I daresay anything could be justified if all you need is a historical example of someone with different politics doing something similar, which I go on to daresay means anything at all.

[Shodan]

@Lemur866

Does the vote on this issue change your opinion of any Republican who voted for it?

I believe Bricker voted for Obama last time. Should he change his opinion about that?

And I am still not clear on why Obama thinks this bill does not give him enough authority to prosecute the war on terror. And again - Obama has said nothing about this bill being un-Constitutional. Why is that? That was supposed to be one of his areas of expertise. But nary a word about that.

Is it just that he has been President for a few years, and is now drunk with power/has learned the harsh realities of the War on Terror/is planning a fascist coup so he can rule as dictator/has decided to implement sharia law and is afraid this bill will stop him?

Regards,
Shodan

[Lemur866]

So are you in favor of the bill or not, Shodan?

[Little_Nemo]

@Bricker

Yes.

Maybe the Dmeocrats will stop lionizing FDR now.

I guess this illustrates one of the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats. When the Republicans do something wrong, the Democrats will say “Let’s say we both were at fault here.” And the Republicans will respond “To Hell with that. This was all your fault.”

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Shodan

And again - Obama has said nothing about this bill being un-Constitutional. Why is that? That was supposed to be one of his areas of expertise. But nary a word about that.

Because it’s not unconstitutional. Well, maybe. That is not to say that I support this move. :mad:

[Grumman]

@Shodan

And I am still not clear on why Obama thinks this bill does not give him enough authority to prosecute the war on terror.

Because he wants to be the one to make decisions like “should this man be imprisoned by the military?”, not Congress.

And again - Obama has said nothing about this bill being un-Constitutional. Why is that?

Why doesn’t a drug dealer call the cops when someone rips him off?

[Shodan]

@Lemur866

So are you in favor of the bill or not, Shodan?

Does Obama’s position on this change your opinion of him?

@Grumman

Because he wants to be the one to make decisions like “should this man be imprisoned by the military?”, not Congress.

So it’s the waiver? Well, based on that, and ignoring everything else, that doesn’t make sense. At least the waiver offers one of those “checks and balances” I hear tell about.

Why doesn’t a drug dealer call the cops when someone rips him off?

I don’t know about that - I still feel like there’s more to it than I can read from the articles.

Regards,
Shodan

[Oakminster]

@John_Mace

And this bill was mostly a Republican bill anyway, if that really matters to you.

Doesn’t matter to me. This bill is bullshit, and anybody that voted for it should be ashamed of themselves.

[CoolHandCox]

@John_Mace

Good on most of the Dems for voting against this (9 voted for) and good on a few Republicans (Rand Paul, anyone?) for voting against, too. I can’t see that this is constitutional (the part about indefinite detention of citizens), in light of Hamdi. The vote was 55-45, and I suspect it will pass easily in the (Republican controlled) House.

And I don’t like Congress telling the executive branch that the military must be used to detain alleged terrorists, even if this bill does allow the president to waive the requirement on a case-by-case basis. I would be interested in what our resident legal minds have to say about the constitutionality of that part of the proposed bill.

The article is not well written. The 45-55 vote was regarding one single amendment (S.Amendment 1126 to sec. 1031 of the NDAA) of part of the entire bill (the entire bill, mostly dealing with 2012 money (National Defense Authorization Act), S. 1867, passed 93-7). The Senate voted down the proposed Feinstein amendment to sec 1031 of S. 1867, 45-55, not to explicitly include a provision restricting detention authority to just aliens. So, that leaves the current detention authority re: Americans the same as what it was before the bill. ie., Hamdi controls, ect.

Sec. 1031 of the NDAA, now just basically reaffirms the 2001 AUMF and it’s granting of detention authority already in place since 2001. If it didn’t limit it to aliens before, it does not now.

However, Sec. 1032 reads: (Sec. 1032) Requires U.S. Armed Forces to hold in custody pending disposition a person who was a member or part of al Qaeda or an associated force and participated in planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. Authorizes the Secretary to waive such requirement in the national security interest.** Makes such requirement inapplicable to U.S. citizens or U.S. lawful resident aliens**.

Since this is an appropriations bill to the military, Obama will not veto it. However, we should wait until there is a final bill with all amendments voted on, passed by both House and Senate.

Here’s a link to the Government’s summary of S. 1867. Here’s the relevant detainee sections:

Subtitle D: Detainee Matters -
(Sec. 1031) Affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force includes the authority for U.S. Armed Forces to detain covered persons pending disposition under the law of war. Defines a “covered person” as a person who: (1) planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for such attacks; or (2) was 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. Requires the Secretary to regularly brief Congress on the application of such authority.

(Sec. 1032) Requires U.S. Armed Forces to hold in custody pending disposition a person who was a member or part of al Qaeda or an associated force and participated in planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. Authorizes the Secretary to waive such requirement in the national security interest. Makes such requirement inapplicable to U.S. citizens or U.S. lawful resident aliens. Outlines implementation procedures.

(Sec. 1033) Prohibits FY2012 DOD funds from being used to transfer any individual detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Guantanamo) to the custody or control of that individual’s country of origin, other foreign country, or foreign entity unless the Secretary makes a specified certification to Congress, including that the transferee country or entity is not a state sponsor of terrorism or terrorist organization and has agreed to ensure that the individual cannot take action to threaten the United States or its citizens or allies in the future. Prohibits any such transfer if there is a confirmed case of an individual who was transferred to a foreign country and subsequently engaged in terrorist activity. Authorizes the waiver of such prohibition in the national security interest.

(Sec. 1034) Prohibits FY2012 funds from being used to construct or modify any facility in the United States or its territories or possessions to house any individual detained at Guantanamo for purposes of detention or imprisonment by DOD, unless authorized by Congress. Provides an exception.

(Sec. 1035) Directs the Secretary to submit to the defense and intelligence committees procedures for implementing the periodic Guantanamo detainee review process required under Executive Order.

(Sec. 1036) Directs the Secretary to submit to such committees: (1) procedures for determining the status of persons detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, and (2) any modifications to such procedures.

(Sec. 1037) Allows a guilty plea as part of a pre-trial agreement in capital offense trials by military commission.

[Shodan]

Thanks, CHC.

Regards,
Shodan

[Una_Persson]

@Little_Nemo

When the Republicans do something wrong, the Democrats will say “Let’s say we both were at fault here.”

Which message board are you reading? :dubious:

[Xan]

@CoolHandCox

The article is not well written. The 45-55 vote was regarding one single amendment (S.Amendment 1126 to sec. 1031 of the NDAA) of part of the entire bill (the entire bill, mostly dealing with 2012 money (National Defense Authorization Act), S. 1867, passed 93-7). The Senate voted down the proposed Feinstein amendment to sec 1031 of S. 1867, 45-55, not to explicitly include a provision restricting detention authority to just aliens. So, that leaves the current detention authority re: Americans the same as what it was before the bill. ie., Hamdi controls, ect.

Sec. 1031 of the NDAA, now just basically reaffirms the 2001 AUMF and it’s granting of detention authority already in place since 2001. If it didn’t limit it to aliens before, it does not now.

However, Sec. 1032 reads: (Sec. 1032) Requires U.S. Armed Forces to hold in custody pending disposition a person who was a member or part of al Qaeda or an associated force and participated in planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. Authorizes the Secretary to waive such requirement in the national security interest.** Makes such requirement inapplicable to U.S. citizens or U.S. lawful resident aliens**.

Since this is an appropriations bill to the military, Obama will not veto it. However, we should wait until there is a final bill with all amendments voted on, passed by both House and Senate.

Here’s a link to the Government’s summary of S. 1867. Here’s the relevant detainee sections:

So is Obama going to veto because it prevents him from indefinitely detaining US citizens?

[Ludovic]

@WillFarnaby

We don’t even have a declared war against the people we are detaining.

You’re tellin’ me! I remember when we also interred second generation – American-born and raised – German-Americans during WW1 and 2 – wait, we didn’t.

[Ludovic]

@Una_Persson

Which message board are you reading? :dubious:

The message board of the U.S. congress and Presidency. A bit obscure, doesn’t even count compared to the SDMB political discourse.

[Ravenman]

@CoolHandCox

Since this is an appropriations bill to the military, Obama will not veto it.

Just to clarify, this is not an appropriations bill, it is a policy bill. It can be vetoed without jeopardizing funding for the Department of Defense, though there are other important matters in there (such as a provision directing a pay raise for members of the armed forces).

Who knows how the negotiations will turn out, but I would very much say that a veto is a possibility. We shall see.

[CoolHandCox]

@Xan

So is Obama going to veto because it prevents him from indefinitely detaining US citizens?

No.

I imagine he wants to veto because it restricts where he can keep suspects in custody (e.g., al qaeda must be kept in military custody). If they must be kept in military custody, that’s an unreasonable restriction on his right to prosecute in a federal court if he chooses to after someone is captured. The Act also restricts movement of people detained in Gitmo which Obama would like the options to move or not move depending on the circumstances. It restricts his legitimate authority.

@Ravenman

Just to clarify, this is not an appropriations bill, it is a policy bill. It can be vetoed without jeopardizing funding for the Department of Defense, though there are other important matters in there (such as a provision directing a pay raise for members of the armed forces).

Who knows how the negotiations will turn out, but I would very much say that a veto is a possibility. We shall see.

Thanks.