Indefinite Military Detention Coming to a Town Near You

[jimmy olsen]

Fucked up beyond belief and clearly unconstitutional.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/levin-and-mccain-strike-deal-over-detainee-handling/

November 15, 2011, 3:19 pm
Levin and McCain Strike Deal Over Detainee Handling
By CHARLIE SAVAGE

7:50 p.m. | Updated A highly charged political dispute over the handling of terrorism detainees is taking a turn: the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee have reached a tentative agreement on a proposal. But their deal cut out the White House and could provoke a rebellion by other Senate Democrats.

The committee is set to meet behind closed doors this afternoon to discuss — and possibly vote on — the deal made between its Democratic chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, and its ranking Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona. It would modify several disputed provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which the panel approved in June.

Among other things, the committee — whose lineup makes it more dominated by conservatives than the whole chamber — proposed mandating military custody for noncitizen members of Al Qaeda or its allies accused of plotting attacks, even those arrested on American soil. It has also proposed a new statute authorizing the indefinite detention without trial of terrorism suspects.

The provisions have proved controversial. The chairmen of the intelligence and judiciary committees as well as other Senate Democrats have asked for the mandatory military custody provision to be removed, and the Obama administration has strongly objected to it, saying that only civilian law enforcement agencies, not the military, should operate on domestic soil.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, had initially delayed bringing the defense authorization act to the floor, saying he wanted the dispute over the detainee provisions resolved first. More recently, though, Mr. Reid has indicated that he wants the Senate to vote on the bill soon.

The deal by Mr. Levin and Mr. McCain is apparently aimed at doing enough that Mr. Reid will allow a floor vote on the overall bill. Their draft was being closely held, and the proposed changes were described by people familiar with them on condition of anonymity. The agreement was struck on Monday without administration officials at the table.

Among the changes: a section affirming that the United States government can hold terrorism suspects without trial would delete a paragraph saying that it does not apply to citizens or lawful residents for their actions on domestic soil "except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States." Instead, it would be silent on whether or not such Americans can be held without trial.

The draft would also delete language imposing a potential limit on that detention authority: that the person must have been "captured in the course of hostilities." The Defense Department had objected that such language might call into question whether it could detain Qaeda suspects who were captured far from the so-called "hot battlefield" of Afghanistan, and who were not accused of taking part in specific plots.

A section that would mandate military custody for noncitizen terrorism suspects is said to have been modified to add in that it does not apply to lawful residents, either, but that it does apply to people "captured in the course of hostilities." The people describing the provision said it was ambiguous how that could be interpreted — including whether people "arrested" inside the United States would count.

The military custody provision would also be changed to instruct the government to issue regulations to prevent the disruption of interrogations. One of the criticisms of the original version is that it might require the Federal Bureau of Investigation to stop questioning a suspect as soon as it became clear that he were likely part of Al Qaeda, because the bureau would have to turn custody of him over to the military.

The deal is also said to impose a "sunset" clause on restrictions against transferring detainees out of the Guantánamo prison. If it became law, the restrictions would expire at the end of the 2012 fiscal year, next September, unless Congress passed new legislation to extend them.

The political questions now are whether those modifications, should they clear the committee, would be enough to convince Mr. Reid to allow the legislation to be brought to the floor, and whether the White House would threaten to veto the entire bill over its remaining objections to the detainee provisions.

UPDATE: The Senate Armed Services Committee, meeting behind closed doors this afternoon, approved the language of the Levin-McCain deal. Here is a summary the panel produced of the revised sections of the statute, and here is the text of the revised section on mandatory military custody.

UPDATE: The Pentagon and other leading Senate Democrats swiftly condemned the Levin-McCain deal on Tuesday night, raising questions about its political viability.

In a two-page letter to Mr. Levin, Mr. Panetta said that even with the changes, the legislation would harm national security by "needlessly" tying the hands of security professionals.

Among other things, Mr. Panetta complained that the revised mandatory military custody could force the government to obey the same strict limits on transferring Guantanamo detainees to other countries – which the administration wants lifted – when dealing with terrorism prisoners held in other prisons.

And in a joint statement, Senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Patrick Leahy of Vermont – the chairs of the intelligence and Judiciary committees – sharply criticized the deal, complaining that their panels had not been consulted even though they have "primary jurisdiction over terrorism matters."

"Regrettably, the so-called 'agreement' reached today in the Senate Armed Services Committee will only harm the efforts of intelligence and law enforcement officials to bring to justice those who would harm Americans here and abroad," Mr. Leahy and Ms. Feinstein said. "We have said before that these proposals are unwise, and will harm our national security. That is as true today as it ever has been."

A Senate Armed Services Committee statement announcing the revisions to the legislation touted the aspects of the bill that addressed some of the Obama administration's concerns, but acknowledged that the executive branch still disagreed with parts of it.

"The Administration agreed to have military custody apply to al Qaeda members captured outside the United States (subject to a national security waiver) but disagrees with the committee decision not to preclude the application of the provision inside the United States," the committee statement said.

Mr. Levin, Mr. McCain, and Senator Kelly Ayotte, Republican of New Hampshire, issued their own joint statement portraying the revised detainee policy provisions as a "compromise" that was "intended to address objections made by the administration."

The statement emphasized that the provisions do not apply to United States citizens, noted that the final vote to move the entire bill out of committee had been unanimous, and said they looked "forward to debating these vital issues on the floor of the Senate" when the bill "comes up for consideration as early as this week."

[Martinus]

And so it begins. I'm glad I don't live in or travel to the US.

[Neil]

And so it begins. I'm glad I don't live in or travel to the US.

I hope you get taken by a Special Forces team.

[Ed Anger]

[jimmy olsen]

Why?

[Neil]

Because terrorists are bad.

[Ed Anger]

I refuse to answer Tim's questions.

[Darth Wagtaros]

If they were innocent they wouldn't be taken prisoner.

[Zoupa]

A section that would mandate military custody for noncitizen terrorism suspects is said to have been modified to add in that it does not apply to lawful residents, either, but that it does apply to people "captured in the course of hostilities." The people describing the provision said it was ambiguous how that could be interpreted — including whether people "arrested" inside the United States would count.

Huh...

[Valmy]

Fucked up beyond belief and clearly unconstitutional.

Since when did that matter much?  The Constitution has historically been alot more flexible than it appears, if you just go by what it says.

[Valmy]

Why?

Because Ed is one of the 1%.  Nothing in this country happens without the politicians first meekly seeking his permission.  That is why Urban Meyer is being forced by the FBI to take over Ohio State.

[The Minsky Moment]

And so it begins.

Where have you been the last 10 years?

[jimmy olsen]

Why?

Because Ed is one of the 1%.  Nothing in this country happens without the politicians first meekly seeking his permission.  That is why Urban Meyer is being forced by the FBI to take over Ohio State.

Amazing!

Truly, he is a modern day Ozymandias!

[Razgovory]

And so it begins.

Where have you been the last 10 years?

Well in Poland I would guess.  He's still reeling from the shock that Terrorists hit the world trade center a few months ago.

[Berkut]

And so it begins. I'm glad I don't live in or travel to the US.

You aren't the only one.