Another Reason omg Obama Must Go

he says this..because he thinks that democrats are completly stupid and will vote for him anyway.

I wonder if maddow will still vote for him after this....the biggest assault on american rights...EVER.

You won't find this on right wing media, because they would agree with that policy.

Wolfman said:

This should be important to each and every one of us. This is anti citizen.

A quick question: Why was this not an important issue until Obama's election? Bush/Cheney essentially ushered in the modern American "security state," using 9/11 as an excuse.

Also, it would be terrific if the GOP would at least provide a non-insane alternative during their primary process. Unfortunately, the GOP primary field is stocked full of radical right-wing ideologues that scare the hell out of normal non-Republican types. This is why the GOP is assuring that Obama will be re-elected.

freemason

because as maddow pointed out..this has never been done before...this is above and beyond what bush has done

guess you didnt watch the video.

nice attempt at deflection though

You're citing a point of view of the lefty of all lefties Rachel Maddow.

Where is the story about Fox bashing this or Rush Limbaugh, you won't find it because they would agree with this.

john

and that is a problem....and is what Ron Paul supporters have been saying for years

there are no differences between the two parties..

democrats will support it...and republicans will support it.

it passed the senate...what??? 93-7?? bilat support

It starts with a snigger about the risks that "some people" will be hurt by something that otherwise might be a benefit (produce a "good" profit)... then it turns into the devaluing of people, considering them expendable (the fascist urge).

http://www.rense.com/general81/shadowgovt.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan

http://www.conservativeusa.org/mentaltesting.htm

http://starkravingviking.blogspot.com/2007/03/louis-giuffrida.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7nJrdiqpaQ

I did NOT hear anything on the video that stated his speech was about US citizens. Applying what President Obama said about 'Al Quaeda' seems about right. 'Prolonged Detention' of NON-US CITIZENS who have sworn to kill US citizens seems correct. I would endorse that. I would find it disconcerting that my tax dollars are being used to incarcerate someone just because of their belief. However, if their belief is that they must kill innocent US citizens-sure use my tax dollars and keep them 'detained' three or four decades.

If we are talking about US citizens, President Obama did insist that the rule of law apply. Just that he wanted, in concert with congress, to establish an appropriate 'rule of law' for those US citizens who also want to kill innocent US citizens.

Roflmfao....

You guys crack me up.

What are you talking about? I watched the speech and did not see/hear any of this crap.

Walt42,

Actually it doesn't matter if you are a civilian or not. There are two sets of laws that can cover a 'combatant' the US constitution, which gives EVERY person a set of rights, (due process being the most important because without this right, all other rights are pointless. If I can just ignore your right to a fair trial, due process, and line you up against a wall and shoot you, then how important are any of your other rights).

The other set of laws is the geneva convention, which allows for an indefinite detention (basically as long as the hostilities are still ongoing), but also defines a standard with how those POW's are to be treated.

The root of this problem is that the Bush administration stated that none of the 'enemy combatants' are eligible for geneva convention rights, but they are also not eligible for their constitutional rights as 'combatants', and it puts them in a hole. Basically what the administrated wanted was the ability to pick and choose what rights from each set of 'laws' they were going to use, on a case by case basis. That is wrong. There wasn't even an attempt by the administration to create an update to the convention to deal with the differences in the war on terror as compared to a traditional war. It was just a, we will do what we want, everyone else be damned.

Thing is, they are prisoners of war, and are liable for indefinite detention until hostilities stop. Otherwise release would basically bring them right back into the fight, which is NOT what you want to do. However, they do need to be treated as Prisoners of War, which means that the 'war crimes' trials need to stop. That doesn't mean you can't try the leaders when the war is over, it just means that they can't just go through the mickey mouse trials that they are going through now.

This speech has nothing to do with the National Defence Authorization act. It was made almost 3 years ago.

actual jonathan

it has everything to do with it...since it is dealing with basically the same thing.

not really,

My 19 year old daughter made me aware of this...so busy I'm not taking time to pay attention as much any more...so glad our young people are! So, once she enlightened me...I found this...even Jon Stewart is mocking Obama...what more do folks need to see? You know it's bad when Stewart is abhorrent at Obama:

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/745028/jon_stewart_on_indefinite_detention%3A_destroying_our_own_way_of_life_before_terrorists_have_a_chance_to_do_it_for_us/#paragraph3

Stewart has been an equal opportunity mocker since the beginning of time,

Click, watch the video...both parts. Then come back with how he's wrong on this one. I dare ya.:)

Wolf, this recording appears doctored. It is not clear, and seems amateurishly altered. Frankly, it does not pass the normal observation test.

Jonathan...thanks for the description (1.11). But, it leaves me very perplexed: I understand the Constitution and how that applies; I understand a little about the Geneva Convention. However, the problem I face is understanding: 'war' !! The Geneva Convention applies to declared war, doesn't it?? And, our Constitution applies to criminal acts. How does either deal ADEQUATELY with such an amorphous group as Al Quaeda?? When a 'mullah' can preach his religion, and use it against the US, is he committing an act of war?? When someone in his mosque decides to strap on a bomb and enter a crowd of citizens with the intent of killing dozens of innocent people, how is he to be dealt with?? US law prescribes, what, years in prison?? Is that an act of war??

I think the whole issue is extremely complex and, no matter what the administration decides, congress and the ACLU and the court of public opinion will completely confuse the outcome !!

At least the left has a plan for detaining all those teabag terrorists prior to their trials and executions. /s

Fema Camps, Death Panels, and birth certificates. Where are the jobs teapublicans?

he says this..because he thinks that democrats are completly stupid and will vote for him anyway.

Sad reality is a good many will. Those who are educated and smart won't. I have some die hard liberal / progressive friends at work who are VERY unhappy with Obama and consider him a Bush term 3. Now they are struggling on what to do this election on how they will vote. A couple are jumping ship to support Ron Paul. Also known as the Blue Republican movement.

Also this might be the first time I've actually agreed with Maddow on anything. Her sticking it to Obama? Wow.

Walt42

When congress authorized the use of force during the bush administration, then that is in effect declaring war. Is it a traditional war, no; was it wise for congress to do that, that remains to be seen; but the reality is that authorization to conduct this 'war' has been given by congress, and it has been that was since the Afghanistan was invaded.

The problem is that people are wanting to rewrite history, and people can't. I am not saying I would or would not have made the same decisions back then, (I definitely would not have expanded it to include Iraq), all I am saying is that the conditions have been met that authorizes the activities. And to be honest, I would much rather put as few lives at risk, which has been the tact that the Obama administration has largely taken.

As for your question, why don't you reread the third paragraph of that post. Remember that what is happening is a continuation of what happened under the bush administration. If you are going to paste Obama with this, you have to also paste bush for it. Neither has offered an ideal solution, which is why I said, someone needs to show some real leadership and update the geneva convention to reflect that this war, and quite likely most 'wars' going forward do not reflect the perfect description of a 'war' in historical terms.

Congress authorized the U.S. for going after Bin Laden and Al-Queda and those responsible for the terrorist attacks on our soil. Not to overthrow the entire Government of Afghanistan and nation build. Big difference.

Simplistic,

Then I suggest you talk to Mr Bush II about that one, because it was HE that overthrew the government of Afghanistan.

Oh I'm not defending Bush on that, but there is no excuse on Obama extending / supporting Bush policy while he ran so much against it. Against Patriot Act, now likes it and extends it. Now wants to imprison people for extended periods of time for crimes they "might" commit. Blah blah. List goes on and on. Bailing out big Corporations yet was against the crony stuff going on that @!$%#s the tax payers over. So on and so forth.

Jonathan...thanks. I'm going to continue being perplexed. However, I would support completely demolishing the rules/laws that require Homeland Security to: close river locks, because terrorists might interfere with river traffic; not have to take off shoes at airports; and a few other inconveniences that give us a false sense of security. Then punish severely all who violate American's freedoms. Maybe that would mean that 'prolonged detention' is unnecessary.

You know it's bad when Stewart is abhorrent at Obama:

Perhaps Jon Stewart is having buyer's remorse? Or he may be thinking about what the radica liberal policies of arresting Americans without trial, limiting free speech, government control of the internet will mean to his children and grandchildren? The reality and meaning of the sinister motives of Obama's "Hope and Change" may be setting in.

Do you want President Obama as President in 2013?

Yes I do and I am voting for him.

So much for the link

The page cannot be found

The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

Please try the following:

• Make sure that the Web site address displayed in the address bar of your browser is spelled and formatted correctly.
• If you reached this page by clicking a link, contact the Web site administrator to alert them that the link is incorrectly formatted.
• Click the Back button to try another link.

HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found.
Internet Information Services (IIS)

Technical Information (for support personnel)

• Go to Microsoft Product Support Services and perform a title search for the words HTTP and 404.
• Open IIS Help, which is accessible in IIS Manager (inetmgr), and search for topics titled Web Site Setup, Common Administrative Tasks, and About Custom Error Messages.

More propaganda?????

Wolf Man

www.ConservativeUSA.org

OMG LMAO, the link in 1.7 is far right propaganda BS < I knew it.

mjl,

and you expect anything less?

Jonathan

Nope :) :)

Well, I guess even some of the most partisan supporters of Obama have their limit. True liberals would be outraged at such a stomping on the constitution. I have a problem with detaining "prisoners of war" when the war is not defined by borders and can essentially drag on for hundreds of years. Basically our government has decided that they can imprison people for life without charge or trial.

And now they have moved citizens in that category? And don't people understand the inevitable outcome of this if it stands? Who defines "combatants" in a "war on terror"? Not a jury or a trial. Once you give government the ok to deny citizens their right to due process you have already ceded to government the power to ignore the constitution. The only thing that separates them from grabbing whoever they want if this stands is the definition of "combatants", and that can change through interpretation. So, if they grab someone under this law will we ever know? Will they even have to tell us? Could we even find out ?

Can't liberals see for themselves how authoritarian the progressive movement has become? Of all people they should be up in arms and shouting from the highest mountains. Not just a few with a mic. Is it that important for a Democrat to win that they will look past thier very ideology? Are they making a deal with the devil supporting any democrat, even if they are authoritarians, rather then take a chance on the GOP winning? Where is their parties concience on this? Are real liberals a dying breed? Maybe we need an "Occupy the Whitehouse" movement? Or better yet, "Occupy D.C." movement.

"So much for the link" #1.35

I'm sorry for any inconvenience.

That link is MY post

There is nothing on the original link your provided , all I found was right wing BS

Libertarian,

I have a SERIOUS problem with congress passing a law, then bush signing an executive order stating that he will not follow said passed laws.

I do NOT have a problem with the complexity in interpreting that this is a war, although I do have a problem with no international discussions on the changes that would be required to the geneva convention and the 'hole' that it puts in.

Like it or not, THIS is the face of war going forward, and it was bush that had more than 5 years to figure that out and figure that changes to the geneva convention were required, though I am disappointed that Obama has not proceeded to start the process.

If this undeclared "War on terrorism" is actually a war then we are losing.

Look up the definition of "terrorism". Fearful population, trillions spent, crashing economy, lost freedoms, violations of their very founding document....... Hell, it couldn't have worked better for Bin Laden if he wanted it to. This is exactly following the terrorism playbook. A textbook example of the power and sucess of terrorism. And we are following the script word for word.

If this was a "War" then we are losing big time.

Bush, Bush, Bush...... he was wrong so it is ok for Obama to continue being wrong. Nice logic. There would have been a reversal of the Patriot Act not maintaining a status quo and even a growth of the powers if a liberal was the president. Well, a real liberal anyways.

And international law does not trump our constitution; period.

bush opened the door, which is MUCH harder to close than it is to open. Iraq is pretty much over, so one door closed, and Afghanistan is on its way.

The decision that was to be made was the one to open the door,

jonathan

I know you are putting us on with that completely false post.

Ron Paul has stated...if ever he became president...the troops could get home...as fast as they could.

obama is an authoritarian piece of @!$%# and partisanship is preventing you from seeing that....he is bush jr on steriods...as he has all the power bush had...and more....and maybe you dont care the power that he yields right now..because he has a d after his name...but...guess what...eventually someone like cheney or perry or santorum will get in there then how comfortable will you be??

obama is no liberal..libertarian is right....and you are being too stubborn to see it.

marshall.

I can say it too, but if you think it is ok to leave the place without anything to keep it together, and thereby creating the 'fermenting ground for more terrorism', then that is fine. In practicality, what ron paul is suggesting is NOT workable, but that is nothing new for Ron Paul, pretty much EVERYTHING he says is non workable, unless you want to bring the US back into the mid 1800's.

Wolf, I e-mailed all our Reps, prior to this coming up for voting, and was told ...not to worry about the (new) wording... 'this (..bill) is not a REQUIREMENT for the actions to be against American citizens...' .. I replied, wording is still unsatisfactory, and heard no reply that time.

I hope so too, but I think you are overly optimistic, Wolf. There are few adequately educated folks out there interested in politics, and fewer constitutionalists. I love the Constitution and have always been a libertatian (small l) but I'll wager a minority of people know what it means. I am grieving for my beloved Constitution and the memory of my heroes, Jefferson and Madison. The magna carta, writ of habeas corpus, and all subsequent testaments to the freedom of man are threatened and tarnished by those who take the oath, but miss the significance, of fidelity to what should be a venerated document.

I can only hope this proposal is struck down by the courts as an unlawful Bill of Attainder, but I fear the oligarchs have already purchased their friendship.

Ron Paul, the stage is set for you to come to the rescue of American values and tradition that are apparantly under seige from all sides. I never thought I would say that.

Though I supported Obama in '07, I did so because I though he was a liberal. The right claimed he was the most liberal Senator in the US Senate based on voting record. Long ago, it became apparant that they were wrong. I thought, "Okay, another moderate Democrat, perhaps even a little right of center on some issues, like Bill Clinton." I've been struggling with my conscience this year as I received email after email from Juliana Smoot, David Plough, Barack Obama and Michelle Obama. Now, my conscience is telling me, this Orwellian nonsense will not stand.

Thanks, Wolf. You have brought attention to what, to me, is the seminal issue in this election cycle. Are we going adhere to the Constitution or just pay it lip service? Sorry if this post reeks of melodrama, but I am seriously upset.

as you should be.

WE need to change the direction of this country...first step.

elect Ron Paul

if you are not volunteering for him...you need to be....speak of him to everyone youknow.

this is important.....there is nothing more important right now...not the upcoming season of american idol...not even the upcoming football playoffs.

you need to get active.

This is just one more example of two faced politics by this bonehead president.

Is this thread about the detention provisions in the NDAA bill? I clicked through to YouTube, and noticed that this video was uploaded on Nov. 27. However, I clicked on the link to the same video, but uploaded by another user, and the upload date on it is Jan. 22 of this year.

Plants,

This video is from 2009, just a month or two after he took office. It has NOTHING to do with the current bill being debated.

Is it from 2009? Wow. I thought that using a video from almost a year ago was misleading, but the fact that it is from 2009 makes it even more misleading. But you know, no matter when that video was aired, it's still a stretch to extrapolate it into "FEMA will indefinitely detain you".

The contentions of this video were verified by Senator Levin on the Senate floor just prior to the passage of this bill. President Obama requested detainment without trial.

...detainment of who without trial?

I'm confused about all the "FEMA can detain you indefinitely" stuff. Where did that come from? This thing is being spun so furiously, and the waters are being muddied so furiously, by both rabidly anti-Obama and rabidly pro-Obama people, it hard to determine just what is going on here.

FEMA has even less to do with it than the age of the video.

Jonathan,

Yep they are commenting on something in 2009 when Obama first took office

Republican have a habit of living in the past, comment about something 2 yrs old.

Look at the GOP history and see how they want us back in the middleages.

Majority that signed this were REPUBLICANs

WWM

Yes I know and have linked the CORRECT information from the US Senate.

It is No big deal.

and yet it was bush that actually has tried to physically deny the right to a trial, it was bush that said that habeus corpus didn't matter.

and correction: ALL people, citizen or not were and still are entitled to a trial.

Jonathan

and GW said the constitution was just a piece of paper

This law was also inforced by GW with The Patriot Act in 2006, no right wing were worried about it then. Oh, and don't forget GW'S illegal taping of the Troops, their families, their PERSONAL conversations.

Nope, I am NOT worried about Obama. But majority pushing this IS GOP.Because ....I O K I Y A R

Wikipedia????

People can revise that. You know that don't you???

I used the U S SENATE> WHAT more do you want????

Sorry, but this is OLD and you were given fact that you are ignoring.

THis is much ado about nothing

here it is AGAIN:

December 14, 2011

Senate Passes 2012 Intelligence Authorization Bill

Provides critical congressional oversight and authorization for intelligence community operations; third intelligence bill to pass in 15 months

Washington—Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Vice Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) today announced Senate approval of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

The legislation provides new authorities to improve the operations and oversight of the United States intelligence community. It also provides the Director of National Intelligence with needed personnel management authorities during a period of strained federal budgets.

Feinstein said, “Passage of this law marks the completion by our committee and Congress of a third intelligence authorization bill in approximately 15 months. Critical congressional oversight and authorization for our vital intelligence programs have been restored and is producing better cooperation and information sharing than ever before. This bill funds the intelligence community’s global counterterrorism efforts that have disrupted plots and led to successful operations against al Qaeda—including the mission that located and killed Osama bin Laden.”

“This bill aims to improve intelligence community operations and to ensure vigorous congressional oversight,” said Chambliss. “It makes targeted cuts to eliminate waste and excess while preserving the critical work of the intelligence community—from counterterrorism and counterproliferation to the war in Afghanistan. We included several detainee-related provisions that increase oversight of Guantanamo transfers and improve detainee monitoring. As the Guantanamo recidivism rate rises to more than 27 percent, Congress needs full insight into the transfer and resettlement process.”

Summary of the FY2012 Intelligence Authorization Act:

• Funds the intelligence community’s counterterrorism efforts that have helped disrupt plots and led to successful operations against the al Qaeda terrorist group, including the mission that located and killed Osama bin Laden;
• Supports intelligence activities and support for the war in Afghanistan;
• Sustains critical intelligence spending while imposing fiscal discipline in light of future budget reductions;
• Provides for equitable reimbursement of burial expenses for civilian intelligence employees killed in the line of duty at the same level as members of the U.S. military;
• Provides intelligence agencies with new procurement authorities to protect against supply-chain risk to information technologies;
• Authorizes new accounts at the Department of Treasury necessary for defense intelligence agencies to become financially auditable;
• Strengthens congressional oversight relating to the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay;
• Improves the accuracy of intelligence community cost estimates by requiring that all program costs—rather than solely direct acquisition costs—are included; and
• Provides the Director of National Intelligence with needed personnel management authorities.

###

Yup, approving a stronger and more efficient defense against terrorism is a perfect reason why "Obama must go."

And why all the Congressional Republicans who voted this bill up also "must go," right?

Roy Batty

The GOP just need to GO. Period.

First off, ALL the bill does is codify and most importantly CLARIFY what happens when a terrorist is detained. It does NOT grant the military the right to detain ANYONE on US soil, because alas, the MILITARY IS FORBIDDEN TO OPERATE ON US SOIL. So instead of congress bitching and complaining about what is going to happen to the next g-string bomber (we had shoe, then underwear, next will be g-string), this just codifies how it will be handled. That is IT.

It doesn't matter what the bill may say on its own, because the military is subject to other laws which will SUPERSEDE what is stated in this law. (the law that prevents the US military from operating on US soil must be explicitly struck down).

Now this particular law really is much ado about nothing, what REALLY needs to be done is to close the gap between the Geneva convention (which explicitly allows for indefinite detention) and US Constitutional Law. This is the core of the problem in ANY AND ALL OF THESE DISCUSSIONS. This game needs to be closed, but honestly considering the level of childishness that is going on in congress, does anyone think that anyone will ratify any treaties?

You are correct Jonathan, here is section 1031 that has everyones knickers in a twist.

Here is section 1031

THIS is NOT about Civilians:

Senate Floor Speech on the Detainee Provision in the Defense Authorization Bill

Remarks as prepared for delivery

Friday, November 18, 2011

This is a statement about the comments that have been made relative to the detainee provisions in Senate Bill 1867. First, I want to comment on the Statement of Administration Policy, or the so-called S.A.P.

Quote from the SAP:

“Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the ‘AUMF’).

“The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa’ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals.”

Given how important the Administration says these authorities are, it should be helpful to have them codified, so that they stand on the strongest possible footing.

“Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country. While the current language minimizes many of those risks, future legislative action must ensure that the codification in statute of express military detention authority does not carry unintended consequences that could compromise our ability to protect the American people.”

Section 1031 was written by Administration officials for the purpose of codifying existing authority. The description of persons covered is identical to the position taken by the Administration and upheld in the courts. The provision specifically provides that nothing in the provision either limits or expands the authority of the President or the scope of the AUMF.

It is worth noting that the SAP does not support the argument made by some Senators that section 1031 creates a “new” or “unprecedented” authority. On the contrary, the SAP acknowledges that the provision codifies existing law. This is hardly surprising, since the Committee accepted all of the Administration’s proposed changes to the provision.

“The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President’s authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals.”

It is interesting that the SAP states that the amendment would “appear to” mandate military custody. In fact, it does not mandate military custody and it does not tie the Administration’s hands, because it includes a national security waiver which allows suspects to be held in civilian custody.

“Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”

The Administration itself asked that we delete language in section 1031 that would have excluded the detention of U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens based on conduct taking place within the United States. If the Administration believes it is appropriate to authorize military detention inside the United States under section 1031, it is not at all clear what “serious and unsettled legal questions” could be raised in the narrow category of cases covered by section 1032, by requiring such detention subject to a national security waiver.

Nothing in section 1032 would require, or even permit our military to “patrol our streets.” Section 1032 applies, by its terms, only to a person “who has been captured in the course of hostilities” authorized by the AUMF. The provision has no applicability to a person who has not already been so captured, and does not speak to the question of when or where such a capture might be authorized. The provision does not give the military authority to make arrests or conduct any law enforcement functions inside the United States.

“We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult.”

It is not clear what “walls” the Administration thinks the provision builds. Nothing in the provision limits the participation of law enforcement or intelligence professionals in the interrogation of detainees in military custody, or vice versa, or the sharing of information between them.

"Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests."

The provision does not limit the flexibility of the Executive Branch to choose the appropriate tool for taking on terrorists. On the contrary, the provision expressly directs the President to establish procedures for making determinations of coverage, authorizes the executive branch waiver of military detention requirements where they do apply, and expressly authorizes the transfer of any detainee to civilian custody for trial.

"The waiver provision fails to address these concerns, particularly in time-sensitive operations in which law enforcement personnel have traditionally played the leading role."

It is not clear why the Administration thinks that the use of a waiver would be problematic in “time sensitive operations.” The need for a waiver is not triggered until the Executive Branch determines that an individual is covered. The President has complete control over who makes these determinations, how they are made, and when they are made, so the Executive Branch should never be faced by a determination of coverage for which it is not ready. And even if for some reason Executive Branch officials were not ready to deal with their own determination, the provision specifically provides that a determination of coverage may not be used to interrupt ongoing surveillance, intelligence gathering, or interrogation sessions.

"These problems are all the more acute because the section defines the category of individuals who would be subject to mandatory military custody by substituting new and untested legislative criteria for the criteria the Executive and Judicial branches are currently using for detention under the AUMF in both habeas litigation and military operations. Such confusion threatens our ability to act swiftly and decisively to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorism suspects, and could disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the American people."

Detention under section 1032 is expressly limited to persons for whom detention is authorized under criteria currently used by the Executive Branch and the courts. The “new and untested legislative criteria” about which the SAP expresses concern is language narrowing the application of the provision to a small category of those for whom detention is already authorized.

Because the provision addresses only the question whether an individual should be transferred to military custody after capture, it is not clear how it could possibly threaten the ability of executive branch officials to “act swiftly and decisively to capture” anybody.

Because the provision expressly states that it may not be applied to interfere with an ongoing surveillance, intelligence gathering, and interrogations, it is not clear how it could possibly threaten the ability of executive branch officials to “interrogate terrorism suspects” or disrupt “the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the American people.”

"Rather than fix the fundamental defects of section 1032 or remove it entirely, as the Administration and the chairs of several congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters have advocated, the revised text merely directs the President to develop procedures to ensure the myriad problems that would result from such a requirement do not come to fruition."

The Administration reviewed the language directing the President to develop procedures and made several suggestions for improvements to that language. The committee adopted all of the Administration’s suggestions.

The remaining change suggested by the Administration, which the committee did not adopt, was a proposal to limit the application of the provision to persons captured “abroad.” This difference does not constitute a “myriad” of problems which are complex or hard to understand.

"Requiring the President to devise such procedures concedes the substantial risks created by mandating military custody, without providing an adequate solution. As a result, it is likely that implementing such procedures would inject significant confusion into counterterrorism operations."

The language was included to address concerns expressed by Administration officials. That does not in any way constitute an acknowledgement that those concerns were valid. Whether these concerns were valid or not, they have now been resolved by specific language in the revised provision.

"The certification and waiver, required by section 1033 before a detainee may be transferred from Guantanamo Bay to a foreign country, continue to hinder the Executive Branch’s ability to exercise its military, national security, and foreign relations activities. While these provisions may be intended to be somewhat less restrictive than the analogous provisions in current law, they continue to pose unnecessary obstacles, effectively blocking transfers that would advance our national security interests, and would, in certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The Executive Branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers."

The provision is not only "intended to be somewhat less restrictive" than provisions included in previous authorization and appropriations acts signed by the President: it is less restrictive. Unlike last year’s bill, this year’s provision includes a waiver, which allows the Administration to proceed with a transfer even if the certification requirements cannot be met.

Congress has expressed strong concerns about recidivism among GITMO detainees who have been released in the past. It cannot be in our national security interests to "act swiftly" if we fail to provide adequate safeguards against terrorists rejoining the fight against us.

In discussions of this issue, Administration officials made a single "priority" request: that the provision be made a one-year limitation instead of a permanent limitation. The committee agreed to that change.

"Section 1034’s ban on the use of funds to construct or modify a detention facility in the United States is an unwise intrusion on the military’s ability to transfer its detainees as operational needs dictate."

This provision is the same as provisions included in last year’s authorization and appropriation acts and signed by the President.

In discussions of this issue, Administration officials made a single “priority” request: that the provision be made a one-year limitation instead of a permanent limitation. The committee agreed to that change.

"Section 1035 conflicts with the consensus-based interagency approach to detainee reviews required under Executive Order No. 13567, which establishes procedures to ensure that periodic review decisions are informed by the most comprehensive information and the considered views of all relevant agencies."

Section 1035 does not conflict with the Executive Order of the inter-agency review process established in the Executive Order. Rather, it requires the issuance of procedures to implement the review process required by the Executive Order.

The Executive Order states that a GITMO detainee will not be released if the interagency process results in a unanimous recommendation against release. It states that a GITMO detainee will be released if the interagency process results in a unanimous recommendation for release. It is silent as to what happens if the process does not result in a unanimous recommendation. The provision in that bill addresses that issue by providing that no GITMO detainee will be released without the consent of the Secretary of Defense. This does not contradict the Executive Order. It is a truism, since under the Executive Order no detainee may be released without the agreement of all agencies, including the Department of Defense.

In discussions with the Committee, Administration officials did not raise this provision as a "priority" issue.

"Section 1036, in addition to imposing onerous requirements, conflicts with procedures for detainee reviews in the field that have been developed based on many years of experience by military officers and the Department of Defense."

The only new requirement imposed by section 1036 is the requirement for a military judge and legal representation for any detainee who will be held in long-term custody.

In discussions with the committee, the Administration did not object to this new requirement. On the contrary, the only change requested by the Administration in this provision was to strike the words "long-term." The committee did not agree to this proposed change, because it would have been onerous to impose this requirement in the case of all detainees, including those who are captured and released, or held on a short-term basis.

Mr. President, I now want to discuss some of the statements made by the senior senator from California yesterday. The first comment of Senator Feinstein that I want to address is the one in which she said:

"Section 1031 needs to be reviewed to consider whether it is consistent with the September 18, 2001, authorization for use of military force."

The committee accepted all of the Administration’s language changes, which were written to ensure that the provision is consistent with the AUMF.

The provision specifically states that it does not "limit or expand the authority of the President of the scope of the AUMF."

The SAP on the provision states that "the authorities codified in this section already exist" under the AUMF.

The next quote of the senator from California is the following:

Section 1031 "would authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial. . . . Do we want to go home and tell the people of America that we're going to hold them if such a situation comes up without any review, without any habeas?"

The committee accepted all of the Administration’s proposed changes to section 1031. As the Administration has acknowledged, the provision does nothing more than codify existing law. Indeed, as revised pursuant to Administration recommendations, the provision expressly "affirms" an authority that already exists. The Supreme Court held in the Hamdi case that existing law authorizes the detention of American citizens under the law of war in the limited circumstances spelled out here, so this is nothing new.

The initial bill reported by the committee included language expressly precluding "the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens 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." The Administration asked that this language be removed from the bill.

Section 1031 makes no reference to habeas corpus, and places no limitation on habeas corpus review. Nor could it. Under the Constitution, habeas corpus review is available to any American citizen who is held in military custody, and to any non-citizen who is held in military custody inside the United States. With regard to non-citizens who are detained outside the United States, section 1036 would establish a process for status determinations which would include, for the first time, the right to a military judge and a military lawyer.

Now the next quote of the senator from California is the following:

Under section 1032 "any noncitizen al Qaeda operative captured in the United States would be automatically turned over to military custody. Military custody for captured terrorists may make sense in some cases, but certainly not all."

Section 1032 does not mandate military custody and it does not tie the Administration’s hands, because it includes a national security waiver which expressly allows any suspect to be held in civilian custody. Nothing would be automatic: the Administration would have the discretion to waive military detention and hold a detainee in civilian custody. Nothing is automatic. The administration would have the discretion to waive military detention and hold a detainee in civilian custody if it decided to do so.

The next quote:

In the case of Najibullah Zazi, "if the mandatory military custody in the armed service bill was law, all of the surveillance activities, all of what the FBI did would have to be transferred immediately to the military . . . . Then the government would have been forced to split up co-defendants, even in cases where they otherwise could be prosecuted as part of the same conspiracy. Zazi was a permanent legal resident. His co-conspirators were both U.S. citizens. They would be prosecuted on terrorist charges in federal criminal court, but Zazi himself would be transferred to military custody. Two different detention and prosecution systems would play out and could well complicate a unified prosecution."

It is not accurate to say that everything the FBI did in the Zazi case would have had to be "transferred immediately to the military." First, it is not at all clear that Zazi was covered by the provision, because we do not know that he was al Qaeda and, in any event, there is an exclusion for lawful residents of the United States. Second, until a coverage determination was made, no transfer would be required. And the President would decide how and when that determination would be made. Finally, even if Zazi were somehow determined to be covered, the requirement could have been waived, and Zazi could have been kept in civilian custody in the discretion of the Executive Branch.

The Executive Branch would not be "forced to split up co-defendants" in the Zazi case (even if he was covered by the provision) or in any other case. First, the provision includes a waiver that would have allowed him to be held in civilian custody from the outset, if Executive Branch officials decided to do so. Second, the provision expressly authorizes the transfer of any military detainee to civilian custody for trial in the federal courts even without a waiver. So Executive Branch officials would always have the ability to consolidate cases in the federal courts.

Now, the next statement which the senator made was the following:

"The Department of Justice has said that approximately one-third of terrorists charged in federal court in 2010 would be subject to mandatory military detention, absent a waiver from the Secretary of Defense."

Taking the Justice Department at its word, there have been approximately 300 terrorist cases in federal court over the last 10 years, or about 30 a year. One third of that number would be just ten cases a year in which Executive Branch officials would have to make determinations of coverage and, if necessary, exercise their waiver authority.

Even that number appears to be exaggerated. Cases of attempted al Qaeda attacks on American soil have been highly publicized and receive extensive scrutiny in Congress. We are not aware of more than a half a dozen cases, total, over the last decade. The reason that the debate on this issue always seems to come back to the same handful of cases appears to be that there are only a handful of cases that are potentially covered by this provision.

Now, the senator contends in her next quote that:

"the mandatory military custody is unwise because our allies will not extradite terror suspects to the United States for interrogation and prosecution or even provide evidence about suspected terrorists if they will be sent to a military brig or Guantanamo."

The provision expressly states that the waiver authority may be used to address these concerns and assure an ally that a suspect will not be held in military custody if transferred to the United States.

Administration officials suggested a wording change to preclude misinterpretation of this provision. The committee adopted the wording proposed by the Administration.

Now the next quote of the senator from California is that:

Section 1033 essentially establishes "a de facto ban on transfers of detainees out of Guantanamo, even for the purpose of prosecution in united states courts or in other countries."

There is no limitation at all in the bill on the transfer of GITMO detainees to the United States for trial or for any other purpose.

With regard to transfers to other countries, Section 1033 is less restrictive than current law, which was signed by the President earlier this year.

The next quote that I would address is the following:

"Section 1033 requires the Secretary of Defense to make a series of certifications that are unreasonable and candidly unknowable before any detainee is transferred out of Guantanamo."

Again, an example. The administration proposed eliminating the requirement that the Secretary of Defense certified that the foreign country from whence the detainee will be sent is not -- quote – “facing a threat that is likely to substantially affect its ability to exercise control over the individual.”

This same language was included in last year’s authorization and appropriation bills and signed by the President. We added a waiver provision this year, to make it easier to transfer detainees.

In discussions with the committee, the Administration made a single "priority" request on this issue: that the provision be made a one-year limitation instead of a permanent limitation. The committee agreed to that change.

Finally, Mr. President, the last quote of the senator from California from yesterday that I’m going to address is the following:

"In March, the president issued an executive order that laid out the process for reviewing each detainee's case to make sure indefinite detention continues to be an appropriate and preferred course. Section 1035 essentially reverses the interagency process created by the president's order."

The Executive Order addresses only the case in which the decision of the inter-agency team is unanimous. If a decision is unanimous, that means that the Secretary of Defense has concurred in it. It isn’t clear why the Secretary would then reject that decision. If it isn’t unanimous, there are no findings for the Secretary to overturn.

In discussions with the Committee, Administration officials did not raise this provision as a "priority" issue.

This issue is also addressed in remarks on the Statement of Administration Policy.

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/speeches/speech/senate-floor-speech-on-the-detainee-provision-in-the-defense-authorization-bill

All links

http://www.senate.gov/general/search/search_cfm.cfm?q=1867+section+1031&site=default_collection&num=10&filter=0&x=0&y=0

The supreme court can't do anything until someone is unjustly detained. There needs to be a party of interest, and until that happens, it won't go anywhere.

That is why when george bush suspended habeus corpus, it never went to the supreme court until Hamidi (I believe that was his name) was actually denied his habeus corpus rights.

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/pdf/BILLS-112s1867es.pdf

page 426, line 15 is the start of section 1031 , the contested section .

wolf, in which case you would become an interested party.

Mark

Re read this

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED

17

FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN

18

COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU

19

THORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

20

(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the author

21

ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate

22

force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military

23

Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the

24

Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered per427

†

S 1867 ES

1

sons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition

2

under the law of war.

3

(b) COVERED PERSONS

.—A covered person under

4

this section is any person as follows:

5

(1) A person who planned, authorized, com

6

mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred

7

on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon

8

sible for those attacks.

9

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially

10

supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces

11

that are engaged in hostilities against the United

12

States or its coalition partners, including any person

13

who has committed a belligerent act or has directly

14

supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy

15

forces.

16

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis

17

position of a person under the law of war as described

18

in subsection (a) may include the following:

19

(1) Detention under the law of war without

20

trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the

21

Authorization for Use of Military Force.

22

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United

23

States Code (as amended by the Military Commis

24

sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111

It is NOT civilians !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is NOT MARTIAL LAW for christs sake.

Mark,

An AFFIRMATION, which is the word that is used in the bill, is just that, an affirmation, it is NOT an expansion of existing law. Existing law states that it is illegal for the military to conduct military operations on US soil. Therefore, this particular law does not mean that the US military can all of a sudden apprehend people on US soil.

The ONLY thing that can be done is to arrest and detain a person for a direct attack on a US military base (which is existing law). Even that however I believe has to be transferred to a civilian authority as the individual in question, unless he/she was a service member, would not be subject to US Military law, which would not pass constitutional muster anyways.

"The supreme court can't do anything until someone is unjustly detained".

If I am arrested, and if I am denied a trial. I will request a trial in a court of law, which could go to the United States Supreme Court.

And... Just how will it ever go to any court, let alone the Supreme Court, if we are denied due process and indefinitely detained without trial, and never actually see the inside of a court room?

Hamidi got to the supreme court, even though the Bush administration for years tried to block it saying that he had no due process rights.

And indefinite detention does not mean that it is secret detention. It just means it is indefinite.

And... Just how will it ever go to any court, let alone the Supreme Court, if we are denied due process and indefinitely detained without trial, and never actually see the inside of a court room?

Good question. How would say...Lindsey Graham answer that?

Citizens who are suspected of joining Al Qaeda are opening themselves up “to imprisonment and death,” Mr. Graham said, adding, “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them: ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer. You are an enemy combatant, and we are going to talk to you about why you joined Al Qaeda.’ ”

Oh. Ok.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/us/senate-declines-to-resolve-issue-of-american-qaeda-suspects-arrested-in-us.html?_r=1&ref=us