[x]
Welcome to the Stink Eye Discussion Forum!
Join the Discussion! Click Here for Instant Registration.
The Stink Eye Conservative Forum; Politics, News, Republican Election Headquarters
May 25, 2024, 07:15:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: White House says no veto of defense bill  (Read 379 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
apples
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 37975



« on: December 14, 2011, 02:35:48 PM »

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFsyaljotNCsnPSzq9tjRtOkPKZg?docId=e3c1b02ccc1a42b78e94120a4a2f53a5 

Quote
The bill also says the president can waive the provision based on national security.

"While we remain concerned about the uncertainty that this law will create for our counterterrorism professionals, the most recent changes give the president additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law, which are at the heart of our country's strength," Carney said.

Uncertainty was a major concern of FBI Director Robert Mueller who expressed serious reservations about the detainee provisions.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mueller said a coordinated effort by the military, intelligence agencies and law enforcement has weakened al-Qaida and captured or killed many of its leaders, including Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. He suggested that the divisive provision in the bipartisan defense bill would deny that flexibility and prove impractical.

"The statute lacks clarity with regard to what happens at the time of arrest. It lacks clarity with regard to what happens if we had a case in Lackawanna, New York, and an arrest has to be made there and there's no military within several hundred miles," Mueller said. "What happens if we have ... a case that we're investigating on three individuals, two of whom are American citizens and would not go to military custody and the third is not an American citizen and could go to military custody?"

The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention.

The escalating fight over whether to treat suspects as prisoners of war or criminals has divided Democrats and Republicans, the Pentagon and Congress.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 06:51:37 PM by apples » Logged
Miss Mia
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2502



« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2011, 06:57:33 PM »

I haven't read much regarding the detainee issue in the bill, but I did see this today from Senator Bill Nelson. (Note I did not contact him, but someone else that lives in Nebraska did and this is the email they received back from his office).

Quote
Thank you for contacting me regarding detainee provisions within the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, S. 1867, which passed the Senate by a vote of 93-7 on December 1, 2011. I believe there is a great deal of misconception surrounding these detainee provisions, and I would like to take this opportunity to clear up these misunderstandings.

Sections 1031 and 1032 of S. 1867 do not create new laws regarding the holding of an American citizen without trial. In fact, to reinforce this point, the Senate passed Senate Amendment 1456, offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein, by a vote of 99-1. This amendment codifies that nothing in Section 1031 regarding the detainee issue affects existing law or authorities relating to citizens or lawful aliens of the United States or any other person who is captured or arrested in the U.S. I voted in favor of amendment 1456.

The authority to hold U.S. citizens engaging in acts of war against the U.S. in military custody has existed for many years. Consequently, Section 1031 simply codifies existing law under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), 50 U.S.C. w 1541, and the 2004 Supreme Court case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which states that "here is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant." Section 1031 affirms, it does not create, the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the AUMF against any person who participated in the September 11, 2001, attacks or who is a part of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces and who is engaged in hostilities against the United States. If an American citizen is part of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and engages in hostilities against the U.S., then that citizen, as determined by the Supreme Court and the Administration, and now codified in S. 1867, can be held without trial until the end of hostilities, similar to U.S. citizens who assisted the Nazis during World War II.

You may be interested to learn that S. 1867 actually creates new safeguards for holding individuals engaging in acts of war against the U.S. It requires that once the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) detains a citizen who has joined al-Qaeda or the Taliban, DOD must provide that person with an attorney and bring the accused before a federal judge to make the argument that the individual is an enemy combatant. Additionally, an annual review of the accused status as an enemy combatant is required.

It also should be noted that there is nothing in the bill which undercuts the right of habeas corpus. Detainees held by the United States may seek federal court review of the legality of their detention in habeas corpus proceedings. In such proceedings, the government bears the burden of proving the legality of the detention by a preponderance of the evidence. I believe these safeguards will protect citizens and non-citizens alike from being wrongfully held.

Finally, Section 1032 of this bill provides for mandatory military custody for all non-citizens captured, who are members of al-Qaeda and are carrying out or planning to carry out an attack against the United States. We are at war with al-Qaeda, and I believe mandatory military custody is in our best national security interest in the fight against terror. This provision does not apply to American citizens, and there is a national security waiver the Administration may use in the event our national security is better protected by holding an individual in civilian custody.
Logged

"I have the nerve to walk my own way, however hard, in my search for reality, rather than climb upon the rattling wagon of wishful illusions." - Zora Neale Hurston
apples
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 37975



« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2011, 07:20:51 PM »

I haven't read much regarding the detainee issue in the bill, but I did see this today from Senator Bill Nelson. (Note I did not contact him, but someone else that lives in Nebraska did and this is the email they received back from his office).

That email is a little settling.  Still do not trust any of them. Just me though.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Contact Us by Email
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!