NDAA and Indefinite Detention: Someone please clear this up for me

[mosquitobite]

It means that the president is now potentially the next hitler

 

[Wolf]

Arg. This subject is very frustrating. So much confusion exists because people don't read the dang bill. The bill is here:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

Read sections 1021 and 1022.
Section 1021
In section 1021 it very clearly states that if a person (US citizen or not) is deemed to be a member of Al Qaeda, a member of an "associated force" (whatever the heck that is!) or has committed "belligerent" acts (again whatever that is) they can be detained until the end of hostilities (war on terror = never-ending war = indefinite detention).

It then gives a list of approved courses of action for those individuals who are detained - 4 actions are given. 1 of which is indefinite detention another is military court.

Section 1022
This section describes what to do with individuals caught during hostilities (i.e. actual fighting --in Iraq or Afganistan) . . .basically in a battle. It requires those individuals to be prosecuted by a military court --- EXCEPT if they are US citizens . . . then they may be prosecuted by a military court but it is not required. Even if they are not prosecuted by a military court they can still be held indefinitely without trail according to Section 1021. Basically section 1022 removes 1 of 4 actions given in section 1021 for US citizens caught in a battle overseas.

The president's signing statement is irrelevant to the law . . . it states how HE intends to use it but it is not binding on future presidents.

The long and short is YES, YES, YES. American citizens can be detained indefinitely without trail, without lawyer if the government determines they are part of an "associated force" and/or "belligerent"

Please do not let any stupid news article you've read tell you otherwise- half of the journalist are just parroting what some congresscritter said vs. reading the bill.

Go read the bill. Read both Section 1021 & 1022.

Oh and the bill codifies the authority that the President already assumed was implicit in the 2001 act. See Jose Padilla (no authority existed the president just assumed it was there--this bill codifies that assumed authority).

horrible piece of legislation!!

I don't understand why your answer had to be so condescending, but I guess that's the internet. Like I said, I have read the bill. Thanks for your input.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I know the statement Obama made doesn't legally mean anything. I only referenced it to show that there is so much confusion over this and everyone thinks it means something different.

My point is I'm not sure what power this act legally gives the president. I really want someone to clear that up for me.

Such confusion is *exactly* what is intended by the authors of legislation like this.

They deliberately use vague language & ill-defined terms in order to make the law "mean" whatever the system wants it to mean at any particular moment.

Ron Paul calls them out for this BS. See his anti-NDAA floor speech @ 1:45:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg69QM1yXQQ

 

[gte811i]

I don't understand why your answer had to be so condescending, but I guess that's the internet. Like I said, I have read the bill. Thanks for your input.

Umm . . . okay I'm just curious at what point am I condescending to you? I did not call you (specifically) out on not reading the bill. I said much confusion exists because you (in general) i.e. people i.e. journalists don't read the bill. I apologize, next time I'll use more generic terms like one or individuals, etc.

This bill is actually quite clear; it is pundents, journalist, congresscritters etc. who make it very confusing. Many bills have things like section a replaces section b from bill xyz with strike outs that make it very confusing; this one has nothing of the sort. The sections are very well contained.

Most people just read what some journalist has written which is taken from gathering opinions of senators, or whoever else in determining what a bill means, mixed with interpretation of what they think the bill means, etc.

I guess it's the internet when people take offense too easily (shrugs shoulders).

So now that people here have explained what the bill does (and I'm sure others have done so more than I have in a non-condescending way).

My question to you is what would it take for you to believe (if you do not already) that this bill gives the president authority to take a US citizen accuse them of a belligerent act against the US, detain them, and without jury trial lock them away indefinitely?

I believe the bill highly unconstitutional . . . but that doesn't matter yet.

Again sorry for whatever condescending remarks; this bill is a pet peeve of mine, I hate it with a passion.