Indefinite detention amendment to be voted on soon [update: PASSED 67-29]

I understand Amish's concerns, but doesn't Paragraph 3 state something like (paraphrasing as its not in front of me) "Nothing in paragraph 1 shall be understood as allowing indefinite detention of American Citizens" wouldn't this anull any law that DOES legalize it? Which paragraph has more sway?

Mike Lee used to clerk for one of the Supreme Court Justices and is supposed to be knowledgeable about their thinking on various issues. It would be nice if he could respond to Amash's statement. Does he agree with it but think the Feinstein-Lee amendment is a good start, or does he think Amash is misinterpreting the amendment?
 
JMDrake taught me something once (he went to a foremost lawschool in the country) -

"If you ask a dozen legal scholars the same question, you'll get a dozen different answers"


In other words, many times the law is defined by the person who is interpereting it at any given time :(
 
I understand Amish's concerns, but doesn't Paragraph 3 state something like (paraphrasing as its not in front of me) "Nothing in paragraph 1 shall be understood as allowing indefinite detention of American Citizens" wouldn't this anull any law that DOES legalize it? Which paragraph has more sway?

THIS paragraph is supposed to more sway (in fact, it's supposed to hold the ultimate sway):

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. (6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America)

But it doesn't. Why doesn't it? See the following ...

In other words, many times the law is defined by the person who is interpereting it at any given time :(

Exactly. This WILL be interpreted exactly the way McCain & Graham & Co. (i.e, the "system") wants it to be interperted. They KNEW that. Does anyone seriously think they would have voted for it otherwise?

If it comes to the courts to decide what it means, how do you think any judge who desires advancement (maybe even to SCOTUS someday) is going to assess the issue?
 
Rand posted this on Facebook today:

Here's a little back and forth from the Senate last night. We took a big step forward to protect due process, our biggest step in years. While a few good friends and allies may have preferred their language, I will reiterate we are confident this language protects Americans as stated. We only acquired some reluctant 'yes' votes when passage was assured and the train was leaving the station. Sometimes we have to remember to accept good victories along the way while also pressing forward with the larger battle. Thanks for all your help in this battle for our rights!
 

thanks

--
edit, I'm not sure that is true. Mike Lee writes:

In reality, neither the AUMF nor the 2012 NDAA did any such thing. The AUMF contains only broad language giving the President authority to use force against those involved in the 9/11 attacks and does not speak directly to the issue of detention. The 2012 NDAA, which I voted against, provides that the military may detain certain persons under the law of war. But that law also contains an important provision—one we were careful to include in the law—to ensure that the NDAA could not be construed by either the President or the courts as expressly authorizing detention of Americans apprehended on U.S. soil. This provision states: “Nothing in [the NDAA] shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

bolding mine.

When I reviewed that, I recall that that language was in section 1022 not 1021, and said 'Nothing in THIS SECTION" shall be construed, in other words, it didn't apply to Section 1021 at all. I'm going to double check.

--edit

OK, I previously analysed that in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...tly-respond/page5&highlight=ndaa+1021+section

as follows (I bolded the language Lee is referring to, and as I remembered it only applied to that one section, 1022 not 1021, as you can see):

That 'as passed' [analysis below]

H.R.1540

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
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.
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined--
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
(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.
(c) Implementation Procedures-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.
(e) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.
SEC. 1023. PROCEDURES FOR PERIODIC DETENTION REVIEW OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.

(a) Procedures Required- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth procedures for implementing the periodic review process required by Executive Order No. 13567 for individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note).
(b) Covered Matters- The procedures submitted under subsection (a) shall, at a minimum--
(1) clarify that the purpose of the periodic review process is not to determine the legality of any detainee's law of war detention, but to make discretionary determinations whether or not a detainee represents a continuing threat to the security of the United States;
(2) clarify that the Secretary of Defense is responsible for any final decision to release or transfer an individual detained in military custody at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pursuant to the Executive Order referred to in subsection (a), and that in making such a final decision, the Secretary shall consider the recommendation of a periodic review board or review committee established pursuant to such Executive Order, but shall not be bound by any such recommendation;
(3) clarify that the periodic review process applies to any individual who is detained as an unprivileged enemy belligerent at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, at any time; and
(4) ensure that appropriate consideration is given to factors addressing the need for continued detention of the detainee, including--
(A) the likelihood the detainee will resume terrorist activity if transferred or released;
(B) the likelihood the detainee will reestablish ties with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners if transferred or released;
(C) the likelihood of family, tribal, or government rehabilitation or support for the detainee if transferred or released;
(D) the likelihood the detainee may be subject to trial by military commission; and
(E) any law enforcement interest in the detainee.
(c) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined- In this section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
SEC. 1024. PROCEDURES FOR STATUS DETERMINATIONS.

(a) In General- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the procedures for determining the status of persons detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) for purposes of section 1021.
(b) Elements of Procedures- The procedures required by this section shall provide for the following in the case of any unprivileged enemy belligerent who will be held in long-term detention under the law of war pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force:
(1) A military judge shall preside at proceedings for the determination of status of an unprivileged enemy belligerent.
(2) An unprivileged enemy belligerent may, at the election of the belligerent, be represented by military counsel at proceedings for the determination of status of the belligerent.
(c) Applicability- The Secretary of Defense is not required to apply the procedures required by this section in the case of a person for whom habeas corpus review is available in a Federal court.
(d) Report on Modification of Procedures- The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on any modification of the procedures submitted under this section. The report on any such modification shall be so submitted not later than 60 days before the date on which such modification goes into effect.
(e) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined- In this section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:7:./temp/~c112dVxo5g:e870673:

I will say it was very hard to get to this, it wasn't in the general index I had to 'locate search' text from the conference report into the 'as passed' version, however, the conference report was linked at Thomas in the 'Congressional Actions with amendments and links' parts of Thomas

Now, here is the part of section 1022 above people cite to say indefinite detention isn't in there for US Citizens:

(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.


note that both ONLY refer to MILITARY custody not being held in other custody, and that they only apply to 'under this section' (Section 1022).

Now go to section 1021:

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84))
.

This is a different section, so the exceptions for American citizens DOES NOT APPLY. And while these sound like terrible people, murder sounds terrible too, and we might all think murderers should be locked up..... BUT TO FIND OUT IF THEY ARE MURDERERS YOU NEED A TRIAL!!!

Otherwise you are locking up SUSPECTS.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top