Americans, kiss your liberty good bye

[Martinus]

January 03, 2012

Obama Signs Defense Bill Allowing for Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens Without Trial

President Barack Obama has signed into law a $662 billion military spending bill that authorizes the government to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial. In a signing statement attached to the bill, Obama said he was signing the bill even though he had "serious reservations" with parts of the bill dealing with detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Sections of the bill were opposed by key members of the Obama administration including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Human rights groups assailed Obama for backing down on his initial threat to veto the legislation. Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch said, "President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law." Chris Anders of the American Civil Liberties Union has also been a vocal critic of the legislation. He recently appeared on Democracy Now!
Chris Anders, American Civil Liberties Union: "This is so broadly written, it would become a permanent feature of United States law, so that 10 years, 20 years down the road, any president could still use this power to have the military pick up people and indefinitely detain them without charge or trial, potentially for years, potentially for life."

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/3/headlines/obama_signs_defense_bill_allowing_for_indefinite_detention_of_us_citizens_without_trial

Surprised this is not getting reported more widely. A lot of uproar surrounds all kinds of gun control laws, food regulations, even states rights over gay marriage, but this is the fucking biggest assault on liberty there can be - habeas corpus this effectively suspends is the most precious right people defend when fighting tyrannies.

[Alcibiades]

I really don't get it either....

[HisMajestyBOB]

Hilarious how Obama has all these "severe reservations" but signs it anyway.
He's so full of shit.

Too bad the Republicans aren't any different - they'd sign it without claiming "severe reservations".

[Syt]

Questions to the lawtalkers:

- under what circumstances under this law can someone be detained, supposedly indefinitely?
- is such a detention in line with the U.S. constitution?

[jimmy olsen]

Everyone here knows about it already, there's just nothing we can do about it.

They only candidate who would repeal it would destroy the US economy and gut the military.

[Martinus]

Everyone here knows about it already, there's just nothing we can do about it.

They only candidate who would repeal it would destroy the US economy and gut the military.

Seriously? That's your answer? What about protests, campaigns etc? If my country was passing legislation like this I would be up in arms. And on Languish, if you don't even bother posting about this, you should just stop posting threads at all - because nothing is as important.

So, as they say, it ends with a whimper. Land of the free my ass.

[11B4V]

Is this the one that states: section 1031 or 1032 cant remember right now?

This is what you are talking about,, Right? "(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."

[Razgovory]

Hilarious how Obama has all these "severe reservations" but signs it anyway.
He's so full of shit.

Too bad the Republicans aren't any different - they'd sign it without claiming "severe reservations".

I don't actually know what the law says, but it sounds like it's a rider.  Something added to an appropriations bill.  The President either has a major military budget fight with Congress or just signs the damn bill.  Since no law like that would pass constitutional muster and would be struck down in the first case it was in there is likely little danger.  Don't know why it was added to the bill though.  Maybe the GOP was trying to provoke a budget battle over military spending.

[Zanza]

So why does the American Congress not have some rule on seperation of concerns? It shouldn't be possible to add completely unrelated stuff to a bill. Have a vote on each seperate measure. That increases transparency too.

[jimmy olsen]

Everyone here knows about it already, there's just nothing we can do about it.

They only candidate who would repeal it would destroy the US economy and gut the military.

Seriously? That's your answer? What about protests, campaigns etc? If my country was passing legislation like this I would be up in arms. And on Languish, if you don't even bother posting about this, you should just stop posting threads at all - because nothing is as important.

So, as they say, it ends with a whimper. Land of the free my ass.

I've already posted about this here.

[11B4V]

So, as they say, it ends with a whimper. Land of the free my ass.

Show me where it states that US citizen can be detained by the military w/o trial

I'll help you out. Can you site anything different?

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require
ment to detain a person in military custody under
this section does not extend to citizens of the United
States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require
ment 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.

[Ideologue]

And this is why we need a line item veto.  That said, this is the text that Thomas (that's the Library of Congress's legislative research site) provides for H.R. 1540, which Thomas says was presented to and signed by the President (and which the President, in his signing statement, also asserts to have signed):

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.
...

    (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.

It's kind of late, so maybe I'm not reading this right, but I'm pretty sure it says that the executive may not be required to put a U.S. citizen in military custody.  I see nothing in there contravening a U.S. citizen's right to an attorney, a fair and prompt trial, etc.

Yo, B4, I'm not sure where you're getting the Sec. 1032 from.  The bill I'm looking at, H.R. 1540, puts that text in Sec. 1022(b)

[11B4V]

And this is why we need a line item veto.  That said, this is the text that Thomas says was presented to and signed by the President:

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.
...

    (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.

It's kind of late, so maybe I'm not reading this right, but I'm pretty sure it says that the executive may not be required to put a U.S. citizen in military custody.  I see nothing in there contravening a U.S. citizen's right to an attorney, a fair and prompt trial, etc.

Yo, B4, I'm not sure where you're getting the Sec. 1032 from.  The bill I'm looking at, H.R. 1540, puts that text in Sec. 1022(b)

I pulled out of s. 1867. so 1032-10=1022 

Oh and your exactly right.

[11B4V]

Oh and so far the score is

USA.... 1
Gay Polish Lawyers...... 0

[Ideologue]

Well, I don't wanna say for sure that there's nothing in there that authorizes military detention for American citizens on American soil.  I've not read the bill closely, and there seems to be some concern from people who have?  But if that is all there is to it, I don't see how one can jump from "non-U.S. citizens, if they are found to be part of al-Qaeda, must be kept in military custody, and thereafter sent to Romania or something" to "U.S. citizens, regardless of cause, can be put into a military prison without judicial oversight."

I'm not exactly for what I do see in there--like, I think killing actions, such as the killing of al-Alawki, are a-ok, but detention without judicial involvement is stupid, counterproductive and barbaric.  But neither am I especially worried that it signifies the end of American liberty.