The National Defense Authorization Act Bill

Pages

OK, let's make this short and sweet.

The panic is that National Defense Authorization Act Bill is going to classify the United States of America as part of the battlefield in the Global War on Terror, with all that entails. The more excitable sites are saying that this would pretty much mean we citizens would only have rights at the government's pleasure: they will be able to execute citizens without trial. Now they've already done that, but the supposed difference here is they won't need a plane ticket next time.

I'm having trouble separating the truth from the BS, as is by design. Anyone have any insight on this? Hopefully something more reassuring than, "yeah, they can, but they totally won't, honest."

LobsterMobster wrote:

The panic is that National Defense Authorization Act Bill is going to classify the United States of America as part of the battlefield in the Global War on Terror, with all that entails.

I'm not sure why they would be (more) concerned - it would simply codify the current policy.

Thanks for creating the thread - I think this warrants a separate discussion outside of OWS and Police States. I'm also a bit confused on the topic. I've heard discussion of a proposed change to the bill that would omit the threat to indefinite detention of US citizens and I've heard discussion the language in the bill is being misread and it already excludes us citizens. Hopefully we can sort this out and determine if our fear is on base.

Drudge Report just posted this article a few minutes ago and I'm glad to see this getting mainstream attention.

Senate Defies Obama's Veto Threat On Terrorist Custody Bill

Defying a veto threat from President Obama, the Senate voted Tuesday to preserve language that would give the U.S. military a crack at al Qaeda operatives captured in the U.S., even if they are American citizens.

Led by Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, senators voted 61-37 to preserve the language that gives the military custody of al Qaeda suspects, rather than turning them over to law enforcement officials.

As further evidence of this simply perpetuating the status quo, John McCain and Carl Levin defend the bill in the Washington Post by asserting that "The bill does not tie the administration's hands in deciding how best to handle a detainee."

The essay is a instant classic of newspeak:

The most controversial point involves the circumstances under which a terrorist detainee should be held in military, rather than civilian, custody. The bill provides that a narrowly defined group of people — al-Qaeda terrorists who participate in planning or conducting attacks against us — be held in military custody.

Of course, who determines whether or not someone is a terrorist? The U.S. government, in complete secrecy and without the possibility of the suspect either facing his accusers or even getting a trial.

Aetius wrote:

Of course, who determines whether or not someone is a terrorist? The U.S. government, in complete secrecy and without the possibility of the suspect either facing his accusers or even getting a trial.

This is really the crux of it. It doesn't matter how narrowly they define their requirements if they never have to prove they've been met.

Well, maybe it's just me, but I don't consider the ACLU to be extremist, and they're pretty alarmed about this: linky

ACLU wrote:

UPDATE: Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

To add, if this actually does pass and it actually does enable this, I think I am willing to concede that we are now a police state.

I read the ACLU article and do not consider the ACLU to be particularly biased either, but its detractors definitely do. The perception of bias can be more important than actual bias.

LobsterMobster wrote:

I read the ACLU article and do not consider the ACLU to be particularly biased either, but its detractors definitely do. The perception of bias can be more important than actual bias.

Not to derail the thread too much, but I think given the context of your opening post, I'm willing to ignore whether people have a false perception of bias on an information source. If they do, that's their problem. For now, I'm mainly looking for good info on this bill too (sadly, your thread is the first mention I've run across of it, since I've been fairly out of the news the last week with the holiday).

LobsterMobster wrote:

I read the ACLU article and do not consider the ACLU to be particularly biased either, but its detractors definitely do. The perception of bias can be more important than actual bias.

See also: NPR.

So far I've seen this article on Drudge, Huffington, and Newsmax but none of the big outlets have given any mention of it. Hopefully people are doing there part to raise awareness across social media.

On a side note, does anyone frequent OpenCongress.org? I just came across it yesterday and I really like what I see so far. Very eye-opening!

93_confirmed wrote:

On a side note, does anyone frequent OpenCongress.org? I just came across it yesterday and I really like what I see so far. Very eye-opening!

Thank you for linking to that site. It looks very interesting and should be of great help when election time comes around.

Farscry wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

I read the ACLU article and do not consider the ACLU to be particularly biased either, but its detractors definitely do. The perception of bias can be more important than actual bias.

Not to derail the thread too much, but I think given the context of your opening post, I'm willing to ignore whether people have a false perception of bias on an information source. If they do, that's their problem. For now, I'm mainly looking for good info on this bill too (sadly, your thread is the first mention I've run across of it, since I've been fairly out of the news the last week with the holiday).

Honestly I attribute this to two things.

#1 - Scandal fatigue. I've said it before, but with the 24-hour news cycle beating issues like a dead horse it can sometimes feel as if nothing is going on in the world other than Natalie Hollaway or the Debt Ceiling debate or the Hermain Cain gaffe or whatever the issue of the day is. These run together and are bleated so loudly that it's not shocking that actual news is drowned out.

#2 - As someone said earlier, this just codifies powers the executive branch has already taken. The executive branch under Bush/Obama has decided that it's above the law in matters of terror. The effect of this is that no one is surprised when they go and put into writing that which they're already doing.

It's frustrating that this isn't getting more attention, but it's not surprising. And honestly as long as we have American citizens saying they're not worried because they trust the government, then what is there to do? I'll give my money to the ACLU, like I do already. I'll vote (or protest vote) as I do already. And I'll keep looking for work overseas so I can get out of here.

93_confirmed wrote:

So far I've seen this article on Drudge, Huffington, and Newsmax but none of the big outlets have given any mention of it. Hopefully people are doing there part to raise awareness across social media.

It could be that the big outlets are afraid of angering the gatekeepers and losing access.

The Udall amendment failed 31-67ish yesterday around noon yesterday.

Is that good or bad?

LobsterMobster wrote:

Is that good or bad?

It's bad. The amendment was supposed to limit the worst part of this bill.

This provision is now cleared to pass the Senate unchanged. On a 37-61 vote the Senate rejected an amendment from Sen. Mark Udall [D, CO] that would have struck the provision from the bill. The full bill is expected to sthe Senate this week. President Obama has already issued a veto threat over the detention language, and from the roll call on the Udall amendment it appears that senators opposing the provision would have the votes to stop a veto override.   

Don't cheer the white house just yet though, I need to find a source but I read that they are veto threatening it because the bill is too specific and they want it to be more vague on definition.

I stand corrected then. Sorry for spreading more disinformation. I really should just start finding source to back things up before I post them.

Edwin wrote:

Don't cheer the white house just yet though, I need to find a source but I read that they are veto threatening it because the bill is too specific and they want it to be more vague on definition.

I had read, and I'll have to find the source again, that they wanted to veto it because it forces the Military to hold people in dentention. The Military wouldn't get to choose exactly which people it detains, thus meaning they would have to spend resources on people they aren't necessarily interested in.

Notice: At no point has the White said it is against this bill because it would violate our constitutional rights.

Edit: This isn't the exact article I had read (this one actually talks about the White House stating that it is against the provision because of the argument above as well as stating the the Military should not police our streets.)

So am I right in saying that after the President vetoes this it goes back for a Senate vote and needs 2/3 (67) votes to pass?

EDIT: What the hell is Cheney doing in this Senate meeting? From the Huffington article:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) emerged from the meeting -- where former Vice President Dick Cheney was in attendance -- saying his colleagues had "a spirited discussion" about Udall's amendment, and predicted nearly all Republicans would oppose the amendment, as they did.
93_confirmed wrote:

So am I right in saying that after the President vetoes this it goes back for a Senate vote and needs 2/3 (67) votes to pass?

Techinically, the Senate hasn't actually voted on it yet. The previous votes have just been about the addition of various amendments. I believe they voted today to stop adding any amendments and will now vote on the full bill by tomorrow or Friday.

Once the Senate passes it, it still has to go through the House, then the White House will veto it and then people will sue to get it overturned.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112...

93_confirmed wrote:

So am I right in saying that after the President vetoes this it goes back for a Senate vote and needs 2/3 (67) votes to pass?

EDIT: What the hell is Cheney doing in this Senate meeting? From the Huffington article:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) emerged from the meeting -- where former Vice President Dick Cheney was in attendance -- saying his colleagues had "a spirited discussion" about Udall's amendment, and predicted nearly all Republicans would oppose the amendment, as they did.

Good question. He yielded a disproportionate amount of power as VP, though, so I can't say I'm shocked. He literally has no respect for boundaries.

Maybe they needed to call in a veteran to figure out how to get away with this.

A veteran of political sleight of hand, you understand. Not a veteran of any war. Cheney had other priorities.

This quote by McCain really sums up how completely f'd up this bill is. Every American could quite easily meet this description just by protesting or showing verbal dissent in one form or another. I get chills reading this Orwellian-esque sh!t.

"An individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat,” said McCain. ” We need to take every stop necessary to prevent that from happening, that’s for the safety and security of the men and women who are out there risking their lives….in our armed services."

McCain is a threat to the United States of America by actively targeting the Constitution, and Bill of Rights and should not be allowed to continue his threat. We need to take every stop necessary to prevent that from happening, that's for the safety and security of the men and women who are out there risking their lives….in our armed services.

Hey, everyone in the armed services swears to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Undermining the Constitution to protect the military is kind of a recursive problem.

But McCain's an old dude, he might have forgotten that line.

I disagree with McCain on this (strongly), but I've got to say it's nice to see him in his old form again. He's actually talking about the issue, like he used to before the 2008 election season.

Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

The government lawyers — CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson — did not directly address the al-Alwaki case. But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States.

Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, are equipped to make decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

Now Obama and his goons agree with the bill. WTF happened to the threat of veto? Can this situation get any more outrageous??

93_confirmed wrote:

Now Obama and his goons agree with the bill. WTF happened to the threat of veto? Can this situation get any more outrageous??

Maybe he doesn't want to veto it if there's a chance the veto might actually work? The ideal sequence of events for Obama would be that he vetoes it, the veto is overturned, and he "reluctantly" accepts the new power that's been foisted upon him.

Pages