National Defense Act Hits Snag

**old Grump** · 12-13-2011, 06:44 PM

Week of December 12, 2011

Funding for 2012 military operations, procurement, weapons systems, personnel and military family programs, and the proposed 1.6 percent military pay raise face major obstacles due to a last minute insertion in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. The controversy is over the insertion of a provision that some fear would allow the government to hold U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism in custody without charges or due process.

Let your elected officials know how you feel about this issue.

http://www.military.com/veterans-rep...nag?ESRC=vr.nl

I'll be jiggered, someone in congress heard the screaming and took another look.

**Warthogg** · 12-13-2011, 06:56 PM

Update: It was announced today that the House and Senate had agreed to exempt U.S. citizens from the detainee provision, making it much less likely to be vetoed by the President. As a result the 2012 Military Pay Raise should be safe.

Read more: http://militaryadvantage.military.co...#ixzz1gShyxEPl
MilitaryAdvantage.Military.com

Saved by Barry Obama's threatened veto. A sobering thought if ever there was one.

For all you Dubya lovers, he would have signed the bill.

Wart

**imanaknut** · 12-13-2011, 06:57 PM

Isn't it funny how these criminals...I mean our representatives always put something highly controversial and anti-constitutional in an otherwise good bill? How to screw the American people by using our great military as a scape goat. Military pay raise blocked because of the poison pill? Designed to make those who want good look bad by voting against the bill because of the unconstitutional parts, so they get labeled anti-military when in fact they are not.

**imanaknut** · 12-13-2011, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by Warthogg

Saved by Barry Obama's threatened veto. A sobering thought if ever there was one.

For all you Dubya lovers, he would have signed the bill.

Wart

Do you have a crystal ball or some time machine to back this up?

**Warthogg** · 12-13-2011, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by imanaknut

Isn't it funny how these criminals...I mean our representatives always put something highly controversial and anti-constitutional in an otherwise good bill? How to screw the American people by using our great military as a scape goat. Military pay raise blocked because of the poison pill? Designed to make those who want good look bad by voting against the bill because of the unconstitutional parts, so they get labeled anti-military when in fact they are not.

The particular criminals adding the amendment were Senators McCain and Levin though NINETY-SEVEN (all but SEVEN) Senators voted for the bill including the amendment.

Wart

**Warthogg** · 12-13-2011, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by imanaknut

Do you have a crystal ball or some time machine to back this up?

I have the Patriot Act.

Wart

**Broondog** · 12-13-2011, 07:57 PM

ok, am i missing something or is my reading comprehension still intact? if you click the "read the full article" link inside the first link (i think) you would find this tasty little snippet.....

The legislation would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. The lawmakers made no changes to that language.

Civil rights groups still pressed for a presidential veto.

"The sponsors of the bill monkeyed around with a few minor details, but all of the core dangers remain - the bill authorizes the president to order the military to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others found far from any battlefield, even in the United States itself. The bill strikes at the very heart of American values," Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. "Based on suspicion alone, no place and no person are off-limits to military detention without charge or trial."

the operative words i see are "but all of the core dangers remain". yeah the ACLU is generally full of shit but are they right about this one?

has anyone actually read the bill in it's current wording to see?

**old Grump** · 12-13-2011, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by Broondog

has anyone actually read the bill in it's current wording to see?

I read the original but with this post only the comment on the changes proposed, not the whole thing. Nothing set in stone yet and I don't want to read half a dozen versions.

**Broondog** · 12-13-2011, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by old Grump

I read the original but with this post only the comment on the changes proposed, not the whole thing. Nothing set in stone yet and I don't want to read half a dozen versions.

i read the original as well, and with the Feinstein amendment it seemed to be ok. looks like i was mistaken on that point. tonite my brain is super tired so my comprehension may be off a bit so i'm not going to go in search of the bill again. i was hoping someone had the cliff notes version from the bill itself. blogs have a funny way of being more opinionated than factual, if you know what i mean.

**Ronwicp** · 12-13-2011, 09:32 PM

It says the same thing it said a month ago when every body got their panties in a wad about it, but didnt go actually read 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.
(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 session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.
(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) 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.

**Meat-Hook** · 12-13-2011, 10:24 PM

Senator Carl Levin (D), Chairman of the Armed Services Committee has revealed that the Obama Administration was not happy with the bill and wanted the Bill to include American citizens,......not just Al Qaeda.

**Broondog** · 12-14-2011, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Ronwicp

It says the same thing it said a month ago when every body got their panties in a wad about it, but didnt go actually read it.

(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.

this is the Feinstein amendment IIRC. the one that folks were saying didn't make a bit of difference. it does still leave the option open for civil authorities to do their worst though, just not the military.

from the looks of what you posted, nothing has changed.

**Ronwicp** · 12-15-2011, 12:33 AM

As far as I can tell the "Feinstein amendment" was voted on and rejected.

As far a civil authorities goes, this doesnt address that at all. This part is specific to military detention.

**insider** · 12-15-2011, 12:43 AM

Our politicians work against us, not for us. Do you really think they give a rats ass about us? Our nation would have NO debt, and still be the most prosperous nation on Earth if it weren't for those parasites. So, keep voting for who the TV tells you to vote for. Even if Ron Paul was elected President, it is too late to make a difference, our country has gone too far over the edge. Get ready for a rough ride 2012 is coming.

**Warthogg** · 12-15-2011, 12:40 PM

This is the latest I've seen.

Wart

HRW: Defense bill an assault to liberty

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 (UPI) -- U.S. President Barack Obama's legacy is at stake over a bill that allows the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial, Human Rights Watch said.

Despite an earlier veto threat, Obama said Wednesday he'd sign the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012. The measure allows the U.S. military to detain anyone it considers a terrorist, even if captured on U.S. soil, indefinitely and without a civilian trial.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/...#ixzz1gcrpg8BG

**bigj480** · 12-15-2011, 01:18 PM

What's goods for the goose is good for the gander. Morality does not change based on what country you are a citizen of or your geographic location. Reap what you sow, Guantanamo supporters.