indefinite detention bill

[Derek]

Re: indefinite detention bill

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Yes and this bill will be written up by the Justice Department? </div></div>

when a bill is presented it is drafted by the staffers of the member of congress presenting the bill.

the justice department is not involved </div></div>

A new law (previously a bill) making overdue library books a capital offence would not pass through the Justice Department?

[RichD]

Re: indefinite detention bill

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Yes and this bill will be written up by the Justice Department? </div></div>

when a bill is presented it is drafted by the staffers of the member of congress presenting the bill.

the justice department is not involved </div></div>

A new law (previously a bill) making overdue library books a capital offence would not pass through the Justice Department? </div></div>

the role of the Department of Justice is the enforcement of laws enacted by congress

[blugiant]

Re: indefinite detention bill

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Yes and this bill will be written up by the Justice Department? </div></div>

when a bill is presented it is drafted by the staffers of the member of congress presenting the bill.

the justice department is not involved </div></div>

A new law (previously a bill) making overdue library books a capital offence would not pass through the Justice Department? </div></div>

repeatinn da nunsense bout woo rite bill iss simplistrixx ann show peeps doan grasp de realitee

moas bill ar drafted by lobbyists ann peeps widd money bigg lawyers ann given to congress

iff yu doan beeleeve dat. ask yuself y cangress peeps sey dem doan gitt a chance fe read moas bill beefore dem affii vote pon dem. dat y manee cangress persons sey dem neva kno bout provisions dat limits peeps civil rights

[RichD]

Re: indefinite detention bill

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
11 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
12 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require-
13 ment to detain a person in military custody under
14 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
15 States.
16 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require-
17 ment to detain a person in military custody under
18 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
19 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
20 taking place within the United States, except to the
21 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
22 States.
</div></div>



could somebody be trying to mislead people

[blugiant]

Re: indefinite detention bill

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
11 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
12 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require-
13 ment to detain a person in military custody under
14 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
15 States.
16 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require-
17 ment to detain a person in military custody under
18 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
19 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
20 taking place within the United States, except to the
21 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
22 States.
</div></div>



could somebody be trying to mislead people </div></div>

staapp eeth richd

wey yu gitt dat fram

da bill author sed dat obama administration ask dem fe change itt bye tekkinn out da xxclusion fe merican citizens ann fe inlude american citizens fe avoid da veto. yu implieinn dat de bill author de demoncrat natt beinn hanest ar yu seyinn dat wat yu poas above iss da language dat de administration asked de congressman fe remove.

more dan 40 membas aff cangress sign letter appose da bill cah itt put merican citizens at risk for indefinite detention so woo yu tink reallee tryinn fe mislead

[blugiant]

Re: indefinite detention bill

40 Members of Congress Say No to Indefinite Detention of Americans

This week, U.S. Rep. Martin Heinrich (NM-1) and I, and more than 35 colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives, sent an urgent letter to House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders and conferees opposing provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act that would authorize indefinite detention of Americans and tie the hands of domestic law enforcement in terrorism cases.

The letter opposed Sec. 1034 of the House-passed defense authorization and Secs. 1031 and 1032 of the Senate-passed bill.

Sec. 1034 of the House bill would authorize the use of military force against broadly defined adversaries substantially exceeding the scope of such authorizations already in law. The expanded authority would have no geographical limits and provide authority for open-ended armed conflict.

Sec. 1031 of the Senate bill would authorize indefinite military detention of suspected terrorists without protecting U.S. citizens' right to trial. Sec. 1032 of the Senate bill would require that suspected foreign terrorists be taken into custody by the military instead of civilian law enforcement authorities, denying civilian law enforcement authorities the flexibility necessary to conduct effective counterterrorism operations.

These provisions have no place in our law. If we include this language, we're on a slippery slope. As my colleague Rep. Heinrich said:

&quot;I strongly oppose mandating military custody and allowing for indefinite detention without due process or trial. These provisions are deeply concerning and would risk putting American citizens in military detention, indefinitely. In short, this authority is at complete odds with the United States Constitution.&quot;

House and Senate conferees met Monday to finalize the Defense authorization bill. It is anticipated that the conference report will be voted on by the House this coming Thursday, December 15.

To read the letter, click HERE. See below for a list of signatories thus far:

Rep. Hank Johnson, serves on the House Armed Services and Judiciary committees.
Rep. Martin Heinrich, serves on the House Armed Services Committee.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer
Rep. Judy Chu
Rep. William Lacy Clay
Rep. Steve Cohen
Rep. John Conyers
Rep. Diana DeGette
Rep. John Garamendi
Rep. Raúl Grijalva
Rep. Alcee Hastings
Rep. Maurice Hinchey
Rep. Mike Honda
Rep. Barbara Lee
Rep. John Lewis
Rep. Ben Ray Luján
Rep. Carolyn Maloney
Rep. Jim McDermott
Rep. James McGovern
Rep. Jerrold Nadler
Rep. Charles Rangel
Rep. Ed Towns
Rep. Bobby Rush
Rep. Jose Serrano
Rep. Henry Waxman
Rep. Brad Sherman
Rep. Jesse Jackson
Rep. Nydia Velazquez
Rep. Donald Payne
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Rep. Louise Slaughter
Rep. Gwen Moore
Rep. George Miller
Rep. Sam Farr
Rep. Peter Welch
Rep. Betty McCollum
Rep. Hansen Clarke
Rep. Keith Ellison
Rep. Pete Stark
Rep. Peter DeFazio

link

[blugiant]

Re: indefinite detention bill

White House says no veto of defense bill

By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House on Wednesday abandoned its threat that President Barack Obama would veto a defense bill over provisions on how to handle suspected terrorists as Congress raced to finish the legislation.

Press secretary Jay Carney said last-minute changes that Obama and his national security team sought produced legislation that &quot;does not challenge the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people.&quot;

Based on the modifications, &quot;the president's senior advisers will not recommend a veto,&quot; the White House said.

The statement came just moments after the House wrapped up debate on the $662 billion bill that would authorize money for military personnel, weapons systems, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and national security programs in the Energy Department in the budget year that began Oct. 1.

The House was expected to vote for the measure later Wednesday. The Senate planned to wrap up the bill in the evening and send it to Obama.

The White House had threatened a veto over the detainee provisions. Specifically, the bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. There is an exemption for U.S. citizens.

House and Senate negotiators announced late Monday that they had modified that provision. They added language that says nothing in the bill will affect &quot;existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the FBI or any other domestic law enforcement agency&quot; with regard to a captured suspect, &quot;regardless of whether such ... person is held in military custody.&quot;

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

&quot;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,&quot; 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.

&quot;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,&quot; Mueller said. &quot;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?&quot;

<span style="font-weight: bold">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.</span>

The escalating fight over whether to treat suspects as prisoners of war or criminals has divided Democrats and Republicans, the Pentagon and Congress.

The administration insists that the military, law enforcement and intelligence officials need flexibility in the campaign against terrorism. Obama points to his administration's successes in killing bin Laden and radical Islamic cleric al-Awlaki. Republicans counter that their efforts are necessary to respond to an evolving, post-Sept. 11 threat, and that Obama has failed to produce a consistent policy on handling terror suspects.

In a reflection of the uncertainty, House members offered differing interpretations of the military custody and indefinite detention provisions and what would happen if the bill became law.

&quot;The provisions do not extend new authority to detain U.S. citizens,&quot; House Armed Services Chairman Howard &quot;Buck&quot; McKeon, R-Calif., said during debate.

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the bill would turn &quot;the military into a domestic police force.&quot;

[RichD]

Re: indefinite detention bill

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blakkgiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
11 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
12 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require-
13 ment to detain a person in military custody under
14 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
15 States.
16 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require-
17 ment to detain a person in military custody under
18 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
19 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
20 taking place within the United States, except to the
21 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
22 States.
</div></div>



could somebody be trying to mislead people </div></div>

staapp eeth richd

wey yu gitt dat fram

da bill author sed dat obama administration ask dem fe change itt bye tekkinn out da xxclusion fe merican citizens ann fe inlude american citizens fe avoid da veto. yu implieinn dat de bill author de demoncrat natt beinn hanest ar yu seyinn dat wat yu poas above iss da language dat de administration asked de congressman fe remove.

more dan 40 membas aff cangress sign letter appose da bill cah itt put merican citizens at risk for indefinite detention so woo yu tink reallee tryinn fe mislead

</div></div>

why don't you go and get the text of the version you are so willing to quote to prove your point..

[RichD]

Re: indefinite detention bill

wonder how many of them read the bill

[Derek]

Re: indefinite detention bill

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BlackStar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That sounds scary. I'm not liking a lot of things this administration is doing. </div></div>

if this bill comes to pass i will see the genius of the hidden hand selecting a &quot;black&quot; man to be president in this time...

he would be the least likely suspected of pushing thru such a bill since &quot;blacks&quot; have historically been the biggest target of totalitarian repression &amp; terrorism by the US government </div></div>

A smiling, handsome, intelligent Obama was chosen for these purposes.

And while people are distracted by discussing his skin colour, passport, place of birth, religion, he is being used to introduce laws that people would scream out against if the Bush administration had introduced them.

And while your civil rights are slowly but surely, step by step, little by little being eroded and taken away, just think it's all just conspiracy theory and nothing really. </div></div>


I missed out birth cerfyticket.

[jah_yout]

Re: indefinite detention bill

just had to bump this since the US <span style="text-decoration: line-through">state</span> corporate controlled media won't touch this with a ten-foot pole...
despite the fact that it threatens to revoke whole amendments of the bill of rights;

the population seems not to care too much...
kim kardashian hangover i guess

[RichD]

Re: indefinite detention bill

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">just had to bump this since the US <span style="text-decoration: line-through">state</span> corporate controlled media won't touch this with a ten-foot pole...
despite the fact that it threatens to revoke whole amendments of the bill of rights;

the population seems not to care too much...
kim kardashian hangover i guess </div></div>

maybe nobody touching it because it is not in fact the case


I posted the relevant section from what i understand to be the bill sent for signature.

blu disputes that...i asked him to post the relevant extract ...still waiting.

[kia027]

Re: indefinite detention bill

<span style="font-style: italic">waiting on the 2012 disaster prophets to come in and state this is how the US is preparing for it</span>

[jah_yout]

Re: indefinite detention bill

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">just had to bump this since the US <span style="text-decoration: line-through">state</span> corporate controlled media won't touch this with a ten-foot pole...
despite the fact that it threatens to revoke whole amendments of the bill of rights;

the population seems not to care too much...
kim kardashian hangover i guess </div></div>

maybe nobody touching it because it is not in fact the case


I posted the relevant section from what i understand to be the bill sent for signature.

blu disputes that...i asked him to post the relevant extract ...still waiting. </div></div>


you would be an excellent lawyer for the govenment...
it seems the gov't can do no wrong in your eyes-- as long as a &quot;black&quot; face is its mascot



quote from RT:

i guess they didn't do their research either...certainly not enough to stump the gov'ts attorney

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<span style="font-size: 11pt">Exactly 220 years to the date after the Bill of Rights was ratified, the US Senate today voted 86 to 13 in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, allowing the indefinite detention and torture of Americans.
After a back-and-forth in recent days between both the Senate and House yielded intense criticism from Americans attempting to hold onto their Constitutional rights, NDAA FY2012 is now on its way to the White House, where yesterday <span style="font-weight: bold">the Obama administration revealed that the president would not veto the legislation</span>, cancelling out a warning he offered less than a month earlier.
Obama has finally brought about change to America, but it’s nothing to be hopeful about.
Speaking before the Senate this afternoon, Sen. Lindsey Graham (Rep-SC) told his colleagues, “I hope you believe America is part of the battlefield.” The United States is at war, he insisted, and <span style="font-weight: bold">anyone alleged to be in opposition to the US government’s game will now be subjected to military-style detention indefinitely</span>. </span>

http://rt.com/usa/news/indefinite-detention-bill-senate-905/

[jah_yout]

Re: indefinite detention bill

rest of article;


As RT reported earlier, one provision in NDAA FY2012 will <span style="font-weight: bold">allow for the reinstatement of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” </span>essentially making waterboarding and forms of psychological torture a very possible reality for anyone America deems to be a threat, <span style="font-weight: bold">including its own citizens who, prior to the ruling, had the US Constitution on their side.</span>Among the corporations which have lobbied in support of NDAA FY2012 are several military contractors, including Honeywell and Bluewater Defense, who together have received millions of dollars in Pentagon guarantees this year alone.
In his remarks Thursday afternoon, Senator Graham attacked America’s current legal system, critiquing it for allowing suspected terrorists to be treated as “common criminals.”
“We think al-Qaeda operatives, citizens or not, are not common criminals. We think they are crazy people,” he said.
“<span style="font-weight: bold">If you’re an American citizen and you want to help…destroy your own country, here is what’s coming your way,” cautioned the senator. The threat he went on to impose involved indefinite military detention for everyone.</span>“What this legislation does,” lectured Levin, “says from the Congress’ point-of-view, that we expressly authorize the indefinite detention” of someone deemed a threat. “<span style="font-weight: bold">We recognize the authority of this president and every other president to hold an enemy combatant indefinitely, whether they are captured home or abroad, because that only makes sense.”</span>Under the Act, those suspected of “belligerent” crimes can be subjected to the treatment. Graham tried to calm fears by insisting that suspected criminals will all be allowed a day in federal court, but made it clear that as long as a judge deems someone a suspect in a crime, that indefinite detention can begin without the help of any legal counsel for the defense.
“How long can you hold them? As long as it takes to make us safe,” said Graham.
The senator added that, “when you join the enemy…we aren’t worried about how we’re going to prosecute you right away.” Because of this, Miranda Rights should not be read to suspected criminals and additionally the right to an attorney is also suspended under the act.
In his closing marks, Graham ironically recited that in respect to “civil liberties and the American way of life,” US citizens must fight. “If we don’t fight for it, we’re going to lose it.”
Before the Senate came to their final vote today, Sen. Levin asked that a remark from the White House yesterday insisting that the president’s aides will no longer recommend a veto be added to the record.
Opposition in the Senate was thin but existent today. <span style="font-weight: bold">Senator Mark Udall (Dem-CO) cautioned lawmakers that these provisions will “deny American citizens their due process rights,” and thus not only “make us less safe, but would serve as an unprecedented threat to our constitutional liberties.”</span>“If we start labeling our citizens as enemies of the United States without any due process, I think we will have done serious damage” to the Constitution, he added, before also calling the legislation politically expedient.
Despite his reservations, Senator Udall reluctantly stated that he was voting in favor, noting that America’s military depends on a quick passing of the act. Still, he said of the dangerous provisions to the act that will allow for the indefinite detention, “I remain unconvinced of their benefit.”
“Now we may be jeopardizing entire cases by adding new layers of bureaucracy and questionable legal processes,” added Udall. He said the legislation will present “numerous constitutional questions” and will go against a counterterrorism community he described as “already nimble.”
“For those of you who join me in voicing opposition to the detention provisions, I want to thank you,” said Udall.
“Though I intend to vote for the final passing of the bill…I want to make clear that I do not fully support this bill. I sincerely believe that this debate is not over and there is much work to do.”
Udall waved a copy of the US Constitution from the Senate floor before his colleagues as he made his closing remarks, reminding them that they all took an oath to uphold it. In the first ten amendments, collectively called the Bill of Rights, the Constitution grants Americans freedoms against searches, arrests and seizure without a probable cause. That legislation would have turned 220 years old today, had Congress not crushed it on the Senate floor.