Detainee Fight Goes to Senate

Wall Street Journal ^ | 11//28/11 | BY EVAN PEREZ

[Kackikat]

A showdown begins Monday in the Senate over the handling of terrorism detainees, with the Obama administration pushing to scuttle a bipartisan proposal that would generally put detainees before a military tribunal.

A proposal seeks to largely close the door to civilian trials for detainees, such as those at Guantanamo Bay.

The proposal, part of Congress's annual spending bill for the Pentagon, represents the latest escalation of a battle between President Barack Obama and lawmakers over detainee policy that began soon after he ordered the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba........

[Kackikat]

I've received an internet email from a Republican, who doesn't understand this NDAA bill amendment coming up in Senate. Truthfully, the ACLU is opposing it's passing, and the object of attack is Sections 1031 and 1032. Is the ACLU opposing as an act to get others on board, who would normally be okay with this??? I don't know.

I'm sure some of our LEGAL HOUNDS here at Free Republic can review this and give an intelligent opinion on it. I looked at it, but don't see what the internet letter is talking about....so before you get one of these emails, let's discuss it.... before we jump on a bandwagon, that may not be what we think it is. There are accusations in the email about it is doing away with Posse Commitatis, and opening American concentration camps, and seriously, we need to get the truth out here, and not allow hysteria to take over. I don't have the time for detailed research this week. Please read these new Amendments, and let each other know what we should be writing our Senators about! FREEPER INPUT NEEDED. Thank You.

[svcw]

Here is a link to the bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:

[svcw]

Link not working - sorry.
I’ll work on it.

[svcw]

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/text

[Kackikat]

Thank you, as I meant to put that in post...
I’m having trouble with my computer again, especially trying to get on FR, weird.

[Cabinboy]

Section 1302 (b)(1) states, “(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.”

Did not read the the entire bill, but it appears a bit of a stretch to suggest that this provision rescinds the “posse comitatus” provisions given to citizens of the U.S.

[L,TOWM]

Got an e-mail from one of my clients referring to Drudge, but with a link to Prison Planet...

That article was complete BS. If you read through Section 1031 of the Bill, it defines the status of the people kept at Guantanomo and specifically excludes US Citizens. Section 1032 extends the reward for information authorization. Don’t buy into the hysteria — but this does give a pretty good idea of why the ACLU is opposed; they want their attorney frat brothers to get a shot at cutting loose some of these jihadis so they can recycle and maybe actually kill a few more us next time around.

[ziply]

If I read the bill correctly, U.S. citizens are exempted for “conduct taking place within the U.S.” Yes, maybe I am paranoid and untrusting of the gov, but seems this could be interpreted as authorizing the military to snatch up American citizens overseas, pretty much when and where it pleases, simply by declaring them part of an “associated force” or someone who “has directly supported” people alleged to be terrorists.

And section 1032 concerns only “military custody” — someone quick give me a rigorous definition of “military custody”. Does it mean imprisonment for >24/48/72 hrs? >30 days? Can they snatch you and turn you over to a non-military facility (i.e., a prison in Eastern Europe or elsewhere, an ad hoc CIA prison, etc.)? Can you be held indefinitely in “administrative detention” in the U.S., at least until your Hamdi-v-Rumsfeld-style case works its way up the federal court food chain to SCOTUS? None of these options are military custody, and the wording of 1031 and 1032 are so wavy-gravy that these could arguably be permissible. Why on earth would we trust the government with this kind of power? Certainly Levin and McCain are old pros when it comes to crafting legislation. Why did they not write a better-delineated bill? I think their intent was to blur the lines with respect to treatment of U.S. citizens, particularly after we blasted al-Alawki via drone.

[Kackikat]

I want to thank both of you for taking the time to help clarify what I posted on Monday. Those type of emails filled with disinformation can confuse anyone. Thanks again for your help. I was pushed for time yesterday and today.

[Kackikat]

This is why Freepers are so important, because so much slips by in these bills, unless the dedicated right doesn’t review it, and tell what is really in there. Thank you so much. When some of us are busy, it’s great that other’s can move forward.