Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Deal reached on DoD authorization bil
The Hill ^ | 12/12/11 | Jeremy Herb

Posted on 12/12/2011 8:53:46 PM PST by Nachum

Lawmakers reached an agreement Monday on the $662 billion Defense authorization bill they believe will satisfy White House demands to avoid a veto over the detention of terror suspects.

House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders changed the bill to add a provision saying that FBI and other law enforcement’s national security authority would not be affected by provisions mandating military custody of terror suspects.

A White House veto threat has been hanging over the Pentagon policy bill for the past month, but House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders said Monday the new language would address the Obama administration’s biggest concerns with the mandatory military detention of terror suspects.

The clause is similar to the one added to the Senate bill that addressed concerns among Senate Democrats about U.S. citizens being detained indefinitely without changing the bill’s core language.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: authorization; bil; deal; dod
We got trouble in River City
1 posted on 12/12/2011 8:53:51 PM PST by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


2 posted on 12/12/2011 8:58:10 PM PST by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

ping


3 posted on 12/12/2011 9:11:25 PM PST by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

So how does the amended bill read now? The earlier version was convoluted enough that it could be read to say that either citizens weren’t *required* to be held in military custody, but could be at discretion of whoever, or that citizens weren’t required to be held in *military* custody i.e. they would be held in ordinary prison. I don’t recall that there was much support for the idea that citizens were to be fully excluded from the bill (otherwise the provision would say something to the effect that the overall bill “does not extend to US citizens within the United States” etc).

All of which is moot, since there very likely is a provision in some other bill that, combined with this one and various others, would still allow for the imprisonment without due process for any US citizen. There’s nothing that changes the implication that the “battlefield” for the war on terror now extends to the US.


4 posted on 12/12/2011 9:29:52 PM PST by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I’m lost. What the heck is this?


5 posted on 12/12/2011 9:31:23 PM PST by RitaOK (wRasmussen- the polling standard for accuracy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders changed the bill to add a provision saying that FBI and other law enforcement’s national security authority would not be affected by provisions mandating military custody of terror suspects.

I wasn't worried about how Fed LEAs would be affected. This is clear as mud to me. Can they hold citizens without due process or not?

6 posted on 12/12/2011 9:59:23 PM PST by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK
'I’m lost. What the heck is this?'

It is a threat to 'due process'.

7 posted on 12/12/2011 10:29:06 PM PST by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

All I want for Christmas is for congress to find it’s juevos and VETO this mal- administration by thugery and beguilement.


8 posted on 12/13/2011 4:51:08 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig

So how does the amended bill read now? The earlier version was convoluted enough that it could be read to say that either citizens weren’t *required* to be held in military custody, but could be at discretion of whoever, or that citizens weren’t required to be held in *military* custody i.e. they would be held in ordinary prison. I don’t recall that there was much support for the idea that citizens were to be fully excluded from the bill (otherwise the provision would say something to the effect that the overall bill “does not extend to US citizens within the United States” etc).


This may be the most undercovered story of the year. I heard more about this on left-wing radio than coservative talk radio. Anyone have the latest?


9 posted on 12/13/2011 7:18:08 AM PST by bushwon ("If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait till it is free"--PJ O'rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig

So how does the amended bill read now? The earlier version was convoluted enough that it could be read to say that either citizens weren’t *required* to be held in military custody, but could be at discretion of whoever, or that citizens weren’t required to be held in *military* custody i.e. they would be held in ordinary prison. I don’t recall that there was much support for the idea that citizens were to be fully excluded from the bill (otherwise the provision would say something to the effect that the overall bill “does not extend to US citizens within the United States” etc).


This may be the most undercovered story of the year. I heard more about this on left-wing radio than conservative talk radio. Anyone have the latest?


10 posted on 12/13/2011 7:18:30 AM PST by bushwon ("If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait till it is free"--PJ O'rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

They way I read this, it is awful.


11 posted on 12/13/2011 11:00:31 AM PST by ColdOne (I miss my poochie... Tasha 2000~3/14/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson