[surefireinvest]

Rand Paul, a strong libertarian, has said "detaining citizens without a court trial is not American" and that if the law passes "the terrorists have won" so thats why they attacked us!

[pepBarihepe]

Maybe Obama is just preparing for in case Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination. Mormons are advised to keep a year's worth of food in storage. So Mitt would probably be a terrorist...

[ringtonesmannq]

Funny that no one here or in the other thread is quoting the actual bill. Particularly, this part of it:

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(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 1031 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 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary 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.

[RafaelYV]

I ****ing hate this country.

[Ehlgamxf]

Disgraceful.

[Suvaxal]

So they aren't required to detain Americans without trial- does this mean they actually can't?

Wouldn't the Constitution and other existing laws preclude that? My reading says yes.

From another U.S. Congressman:

Dear Colleague:One of the most important issues in the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) involves detainee issues. I would like to take a moment to explain my position.First, the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) section in our bill, Section 1021, merely codifies current law. It specifically states, “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.” Quite simply, our courts will decide what the law is regarding detention of U.S. citizens.Second, any U.S. citizen detained under Section 1021 has the right under habeas corpus to have the legality of any such detention determined by our courts. The courts have also held that anyone detained under the AUMF at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, also has habeas rights. We do not change these rights.Third, Section 1022, entitled, “Military Custody For Foreign al-Qaeda Terrorists” specifically excludes US citizens. It states, “the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” It also states the requirement to detain under Section 1022 “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.”Fourth, we also codify periodic review for those being detained at Guantanamo Bay, now and in the future, which is an important procedure for those detained indefinitely as a threat to the United States under the law of war.Finally, I understand and respect the opinions of our colleagues who do not like the current law on this subject. I fought hard in conference to make sure that this bill did nothing to expand federal authority under the AUMF and succeeded in that effort. We need to protect our country but also preserve our values and due process rights in doing so.This bill needs to be passed. We need to make sure that our troops have the support they to protect our country and ensure national security.

Sincerely,
Adam Smith
Ranking Member
House Armed Services Committee
I'd suggest going here for a very balanced view of the AUMF and NDAA that doesn't resort to mass hysteria: http://www.lawfareblog.com/

There's good analysis there, but the one thing that's pointed out quite firmly is that ANY assertions that this bill clearly says U.S. citizens can be indefinitely detained w/o due process is not supportable by the facts. It is, at best, a vague statute, but as Congressman Smith notes, nothing in the statute robs U.S. Citizens of habeas corpus. Note that it also limits the targets of this bill to very specific people: Al Queda members/supporters who have actually participated in attacks.

My take is that this bill codifies what was already existing practice at GITMO, which had never really been put in writing. Do I like that? No. But I don't agree that this somehow gives the Administration carte blanche to indefinitely detain anyone they want, especially not U.S. Citizens, because the Constitution and existing law already prohibit that.

[oxinsnepe]

I think reading the Guardian was your first mistake.

[AnypecekceS]

The Guardian FTW.

[Grorointeri]

I'm not sure what inspires this obsession with "reddit" you seem to have had over the past few days but it seems unhealthy.

[gugamotina]

This is how it starts..........

First they came for the Guardian readers...