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.

“We are at war with al Qaeda and people determined to be part of al Qaeda should be treated as people who are at war with us,” Mr. Levin said.

He and Arizona Sen. John McCain, the ranking Republican on his committee, had struck a deal earlier this month on giving the military priority custody, while allowing the administration to waive that and give civilian authorities priority if it deems the waiver in the interests of national security.

The White House and its Senate allies objected and tried to block the changes, instead calling for the issue to be studied further.

They argued giving the military priority could complicate investigations into terrorist suspects in the U.S., and said it opens the door to indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens.

Read the pages from the debate on this bill where Graham, McCain and Levin are speaking...it is very eye opening. Pages 39-49 from the PDF below.

Absolutely crazy. They are using the Christmas Day bomber as an example of why they want to detain anyone for as long as they like without access to a lawyer or judicial process.
Massive growth of Federal powers. Clear violation of the constitution. The USA, liberty and life as we truly know it is being quickly eroded through the reaction to terrorism.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Detainee-Debate-SASC-floor-Nov-17-and-Nov-18-20111.pdf

Hard to believe that people like these are running our country and destroying our liberty.

Haven't read the bill, so asking for anyone who has: Does this apply only to "Americans" captured "outside the USA" and engaged in terrorist activities against the US and/or, caught in circumstances whereby they are actively fighting with any Islamic Jihadist Group against our Military?

If so, I concur as there are many Moozies who emigrated, became citizens and then have left to join one Jihadist Organization or another; if not and would allow American Citizens to be "arrested" on U.S. soil, then no, I'd be against it!

First of all, if the latter, it would have to be a recognized "CIVILIAN" Law Enforcement Agency to execute the arrest as I believe, the Posse Commitatus Act continues to be operative.

Secondly, IF accused and alledged (FOREIGN-BORN) Terrorist, caught in the act of trying to blow something up here in the U.S. are afforded all the Rights under our Constitution there is not a court in this land which would no entertain a writ of Habeas Corpus for any American Citizen.

Just found this piece at American Thinker:

Defense Authorization Bill False Alarm?

James Simpson

There have been frantic emails flying around about the 2012 Defense Authorization Act claiming that it authorizes the military to "detain American citizens" on U.S. soil for the first time in history. The emails claim that "even the ACLU is on our side on this one."

That in-and-of-itself should raise red flags, as the ACLU's and the left's positions almost always favor our enemies. A few leftist lawyers, like Lynne Stewart, have even been honest enough to admit it from time to time.

This legislation awaits serious analysis from a trustworthy legal authority, however a reading of the sections in question (1031, 32 and 33) suggest a different reason for the ACLU's protest:

The bill specifically excludes American citizens and legal residents of the U.S (1032 (b)). This writer could not find any provision that authorizes detention of U.S. citizens.
It specifically identifies al Qaeda, members of the Taliban, and those who have assisted them in the 9-11 attacks or other terrorist activities, as being subject to these provisions (1031(b); 1032(a)).
It makes it more difficult for the Obama administration to transfer prisoners out of Guantanamo to civilian courts within the continental U.S.

This last point is the reason the Obama administration has threatened a veto . It is the reason "humanitarian" groups like Amnesty International oppose the legislation, and is very likely the real reason for ACLU's opposition. Lest we forget, many of Eric Holder's appointees were defending these terrorists before he brought them into the Justice Department.

This does not rule out the possibility of problems. There is always the option to change the law in the future, for example by muddling the definition of "terrorist." The Left has always been good at this kind of maneuver, and the ACLU has been right there with them.

In this case it looks like the ACLU has deliberately raised a straw man argument to alarm conservatives and obtain their unwitting support in opposing legislation that keeps captured terrorists where they belong: in Guantanamo awaiting military trial.

So before running off half-cocked, it would be wisest to hear from some reputable conservative legal scholars on the real implications of this legislation.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.