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

Skip to comments.

Senator Marco Rubio Defends NDAA
Brevard Times ^

Posted on 01/03/2012 10:23:53 AM PST by emax

I thought this would be interesting to share with all fans and supporters of Rubio here and all those who think only leftist Democrats and leftists disguised as Republicans supported this bill. Thought it would be interesting to see a Conservative perspective of support for the bill, admist all the claims that this was something done by Obama to start to create a Communist regime. This has been posted in replies to other posts before but I thought it was deserving of its own thread, so here it is.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: allenwest; bipartisan; civilliberties; fl; florida; marcorubio; ndaa; rubio
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

1 posted on 01/03/2012 10:24:00 AM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: emax
Actually, glad you posted this, because -- contrary to your possible desire -- it didn't turn me against Rubio, but instead, lowered my concern about the possible abuses of NDAA.

ON THE OTHER HAND......

2 posted on 01/03/2012 10:28:32 AM PST by Lazamataz (Romney is the Pale Obama. That's all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: emax; seekthetruth

I believe that Allen West voted fot it also. Freeper seekthe truth should be knowledgeable on this. Prthaps they could enlighten us. Or me.


3 posted on 01/03/2012 10:28:53 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: emax
Don't be fooled. Plenty here supported Bush in the Padilla case & the NDAA language basically codifies that thinking/approach.

It's wrong when Obama supports it. It was wrong when Bush did, too.

4 posted on 01/03/2012 10:32:45 AM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Actually, I supported Rubio then and I support him now and did not at all intend to get anyone to relinquish support for Rubio. And his support for this and explanation did help to assauge some fo my earlier concerns. I was only trying to enumerate how this bill was not something that Obama and friends created and passed on their own-it did have support from leaders that are respected as true conservatives-and true defenders of American freedoms. Other people might say that they are now traitors, but their support for this bill should also suggest that maybe this bill is not an attempt to give our administration brand new unconstitutional powers that didnt exist before.


5 posted on 01/03/2012 10:33:26 AM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sport

Yes West voted for it and so did many many other so called republicans. They all love the power and the control. Don’t be fooled into thinking that your republican senator or congressman does not want to retain their power to ignore you just the way the Dems do. Lets face it 535 people have hijacked this country and are doing what they darn well please. Changing this back is going to be a real fight and some of the enemy are in our own party. Sad but true.


6 posted on 01/03/2012 10:38:15 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sport
I believe that Allen West voted fot it also

With an explanation as to why.....http://allenwestrepublic.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/national-defense-authorization-act-congressman-allen-west-official-statement/
7 posted on 01/03/2012 10:39:35 AM PST by gimme1ibertee ("Criticism......brings attention to an unhealthy state of things"-Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sport
I believe that Allen West voted fot it also

With an explanation as to why..... http://allenwestrepublic.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/national-defense-authorization-act-congressman-allen-west-official-statement/
8 posted on 01/03/2012 10:41:02 AM PST by gimme1ibertee ("Criticism......brings attention to an unhealthy state of things"-Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JulieRNR21; kinganamort; katherineisgreat; floriduh voter; summer; Goldwater Girl; windchime; ...

Florida Freeper


9 posted on 01/03/2012 10:41:06 AM PST by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

P4L


10 posted on 01/03/2012 10:42:18 AM PST by NewJerseyJoe (Rat mantra: "Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gimme1ibertee

Ooops! Apologies for the double-posting!!


11 posted on 01/03/2012 10:42:29 AM PST by gimme1ibertee ("Criticism......brings attention to an unhealthy state of things"-Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: emax
Well, good on all counts!

Just remember: I love cats.

12 posted on 01/03/2012 10:43:33 AM PST by Lazamataz (Romney is the Pale Obama. That's all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

“Simply put, the application of this detention requirement is limited to Al-Qaeda members that have tried to attack the US or its allies. However, this detention requirement is clearly limited by a clause that states that the requirement to detain does not extend to US citizens or lawful permanent residents.”

All-American Muslims aside, what does this law say about Muslims who are American citizens but who are either aware of/engaged in/providing support of 1) belligerent acts in our country or 2) working toward undermining our Constitution by installing sharia law ?


13 posted on 01/03/2012 10:46:56 AM PST by klb99 (I now understand why the South seceeded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: emax

There is no way to defend this bill.


14 posted on 01/03/2012 10:47:22 AM PST by formosa (Formosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gdani

Don’t be alarmist here!

It is not these laws, specifically designed to fight terror that we need to be concerned about.

Rather it is ill motivated leadership, willing to ignore and bypass any and all laws to implement their agenda that should concern us all.


15 posted on 01/03/2012 10:48:04 AM PST by G Larry ("I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his Character.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: emax

No law should be acceptable to a citizen of this nation because they trust that the current leadership will not abuse it.

The law must be written such that the worst abuser of the rights of the citizenry cannot use that law to impose a restriction of our rights that is not permitted by the Constitution.

What was in the language of the remainder of the law that was so important, that a vote to hold citizens without trial indefinitely is an acceptable compromise?

Why was this law needed in this appropriations bill?

The answer is simple and frightening. All those who voted for it, wanted it there.

Is this a road we want to travel?

This is a mistake of the most grievous kind, whether you are conservative, liberal, socialist, nationalist, Republican, Independent, or Democrat.

And none of the candidates for office have said a word about it.

We have lost the ability to even recognize the demolition of our rights.

God help my children and future generations, who have given away so much, purchased so dearly, without comment, objection, or even notice.


16 posted on 01/03/2012 10:48:58 AM PST by LachlanMinnesota (Which are you? A producer, a looter, or a moocher of wealth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

Thank you!


17 posted on 01/03/2012 10:53:25 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gimme1ibertee

the law isn’t limited to Al Queda


18 posted on 01/03/2012 10:55:37 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
Don’t be alarmist here!

Alarmist? I notice you didn't say "incorrect".

It is not these laws, specifically designed to fight terror that we need to be concerned about.

If you think these laws won't be used beyond Al-Qaeda & other legitimate terrorists then you trust your government far more than I do. Look up how often the USA PATRIOT Act has been used for drug cases. That is but one of many examples.

Rather it is ill motivated leadership, willing to ignore and bypass any and all laws to implement their agenda that should concern us all.

All the leadership of both parties is ill-motivated. These laws become their tools & that's why they should be opposed from the start. It's not enough to say don't worry about the laws, it's the politicians. You can not separate one from the other.

19 posted on 01/03/2012 10:55:46 AM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: klb99

I understand. Your social security card/ number was never going to be used for identification purposes either.


20 posted on 01/03/2012 10:57:45 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LachlanMinnesota

Where does it say unambiguously that US citizens can be held without trial ? This is the direct text with regards to US citizens :

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) AUTHORITIES.—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.


21 posted on 01/03/2012 11:00:27 AM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: emax
... this was something done by Obama to start to create a Communist regime ...

The disappointing part of NDAA is not that it's a far-left fringe Obama atrocity but that it has such widespread support within Congress. NDAA is a clear, unambiguous violation of the Bill of Rights that I am equally disappointed with those who give lip service to the NRA but support NDAA and with those who give lip service to the ACLU but support NDAA. NDAA is simply indefensible as written, and I have read (and posted on FR) the unacceptable wording.

22 posted on 01/03/2012 11:04:28 AM PST by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

“Don’t be alarmist here!”

Ya heck, whats a little Stalinism between friends. Most folks would rather be safe than free anyway...

As for me give me liberty and keep your safety


23 posted on 01/03/2012 11:04:45 AM PST by Breto (The republican leadership are morons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

They all belong to the BOHICA Party and they rule, not represent, us. This is truly a case where you have to destroy (figuratively) the village, in order to save it.


24 posted on 01/03/2012 11:08:19 AM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Breto

Did you even read Rubio’s response?


25 posted on 01/03/2012 11:12:21 AM PST by G Larry ("I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his Character.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: emax

The law has been in place and some voting for it justified it by saying that it was not a change from prior law in the patriot act.

So why is this law in there if there is no change to existing law?

The law is bad if reaffirmed here, as well as when passed in the prior actions of Congress.

People may differ in their interpretation of this law. My take is that the military has a mandatory obligation under Section 1032 to take into custody those individuals listed in the statute in Section 1031.

Then, later, it says that the mandatory provisions to not apply to US Citizens, but it leaves the door open for optional custody. “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

Why does it not refer to the ability of the military to detain, rather than the obligation?

Even if I am wrong, it is written so poorly, that it could be used by someone with motive to interpret it that way.

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.— The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
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.
on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
(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.


26 posted on 01/03/2012 11:12:50 AM PST by LachlanMinnesota (Which are you? A producer, a looter, or a moocher of wealth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Ok... the cat video, seriously WTF... is that?


27 posted on 01/03/2012 11:12:50 AM PST by mojitojoe (SCOTUS.... think about that when you decide to sit home and pout because your candidate didn't win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
It's a cat.

With a poptart for a body.

Which flies through space.

And farts rainbows.

To a song who's lyrics are NyanNyanNyahNyan.

I know. I can explain it most simply if you watch this reporter who is talking about this very thing!

28 posted on 01/03/2012 11:17:58 AM PST by Lazamataz (Romney is the Pale Obama. That's all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LachlanMinnesota

Obama required that the language be inserted into the legislation according to Lindsey Gramm and Levin.


29 posted on 01/03/2012 11:28:34 AM PST by LachlanMinnesota (Which are you? A producer, a looter, or a moocher of wealth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

Lets face it 535 people have hijacked this country and are doing what they darn well please.
________________________________________
So is it any wonder that people have little hope? That consumer confidence is at an all time low? Does it now also show how incredibly weak the American Idol generation is? How can 535 people control 311,800,000? If 535 can control 311,800,000 then liberty was lost long ago, people just don’t realize it yet, but they never do until it is completely gone.


30 posted on 01/03/2012 11:34:22 AM PST by mojitojoe (SCOTUS.... think about that when you decide to sit home and pout because your candidate didn't win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

As with Allen West the only thing that matters to me is a persons actions not his words... Both voted against liberty and for Stalinism


31 posted on 01/03/2012 11:35:57 AM PST by Breto (The republican leadership are morons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]




Click the Biker

"Which way to Rolling Thunder?"
He's looking for monthly donors


Donate Monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each New Monthly Donor

32 posted on 01/03/2012 11:37:25 AM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Breto

No, they did no such thing. You are deceived by a raft load of ignorance piled upon foolishness, Ron Paul’s blind delusions, and the Progressive lawyers efforts to divide the conservative community.

Indefinite detention and the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus serves legitimate and humane purposes when applied as intended by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution’s provisions for it. To blindly and ignorantly denounce these age old laws without understanding their benefits as well as their risks only plays into the hands of the very people you fear most.

There are certain aspects of the legislation which deserve concern, but the protests of outrage over indefinite detention and the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus are irrational given their continuous existence since the Constitution was adopted in 1787.

Everyone needs to back off and learn enough about these laws to understand how they came into existence, why they exist, how they affect the welfare of our own prisoners of war, the effect they may have upon a renegade domestic government abusing the civil liberties of U.S. citizens, and the reasons why blind criticism of these types of laws wrongly divides the confidence in the conservative legislators supporting this legislation.

In other words, if anyone thinks it is necessary or rightful to criticize this legislation, they need to take personal responsibility for becoming properly informed and knowing what the potential consequences may be from blindly criticizing and neglecting other aspeccts of the legislation receiving no attention.


33 posted on 01/03/2012 12:02:54 PM PST by WhiskeyX (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) about the language of the legislation is coming from)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: LachlanMinnesota; Pollster1; gdani

Well the point was to in those clauses reaffirm that the existing laws already in place still apply to you IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN OR LEGAL ALIEN. That was the point, to address those specific conditions, and it does so unambiguously in the clauses I mentioned above. It replaced the attempt to directly state that the law doesnt apply to US citizens. And there are numerous legal possbilities as to why that provision wasnt included. For example, if it was stated that Section 1031 doesnt ever apply to US citizens directly, than all other Sections could be interpreted so that they DO apply to US citizens, which would be even worse. I am not saying it is a great solution, but there are legal necessities that motivated it.

As to reaffirm the law, well the NDAA has been passed every year for 48 years now and by and large it reaffirms existing law. With the exception of those 3 or so new provisions, this NDAA says the by and large the same things the NDAA has always stated. Congress often passes laws that simply reaffirm existing laws-this isnt anything new there.

And yes, the wording is bad, but virtually all Congressional Acts have sloppy wording and we have existing laws that could just as easily be interpreted as allowing the govt to detain a US citizen without trial if they were truly determined to do it. Yes, there are many badly writted parts of these provisions-even Rubio in my original statement concedes that. Obama and D and R Congressmen/women conceded that. There are parts that can be abused by an irresponsibly govt. The point was that 1. This was not something that was done solely by Socailist leaning elements of govt who forced and/or brainwashed everyone else into complaince. Leaders respected as true conservatives did support it and that does not necessaryly mean they are now traitors to the Constitution 2. This bill does not give the govt and the president any sort of new power, that they did not have already, to detain without trial a US citizen. It does have some language that could definitely be used to widen the scope of who could be considered a terrorist, but if the govt determined someone was a terrorist after thsi bill, there is no reason at all to beleive they couldnt do it before this bill was passed.

And I am not saying, for the record, that i endorse this bill either. I am not at all thrilled or happy about the sloppy and vague language and lack of clear definitions. I can see how this law can be abused for power grabs and for detentions like Jose Padilla was. But the issue is with saying that this bill officially gives the govt, for the first time, the means to do random snatch and grab operations and roudning up masses of Americans at will. So say that suggests a lack of understanding regarding current laws and the rights of the govt and the people. And even in the Padilla case, when he was detained by the military, it eventually became a huge hassle for the govt with the case brought before SCOTUS and several Courts fo Appeals and eventually having the Padilla tried ina civilian court. If the govt was still interested in following the law and playing by the rules, detaining thousands, or hudnreds of thousands of US citizens as some fear, would create thousands of these hassles for the govt; they wouldnt be able to just have them all contained somewhere forever. And if the govt does not want to follow the law and play by the rules, well, then this bill, like all the bills and SCOTUS rulings, becomes irrelevant anyway.


34 posted on 01/03/2012 12:09:31 PM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Yay, horay, you came back ! Want to try explaining some of tyour logic and commen sense to some of the other posters in this thread ?


35 posted on 01/03/2012 12:11:23 PM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Yay, horay, you came back ! Want to try explaining some of your logic and common sense to some of the other posters in this thread ?


36 posted on 01/03/2012 12:11:33 PM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: LachlanMinnesota; gdani; sport; Pollster1

Some other links to look at. I know you may not have time to read all of them , but looking at any one of them might help.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/12/rest-of-what-senator-levin-said.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/11/1044215/-The-Rest-of-What-Levin-Said-on-NDAA-Provisions

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nt77r/the_14_senators_who_voted_against_ndaa_all_the/c3brs66

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2011/12/indefinitedetentionbs.html

From the first link, is the section Does the NDAA expand the government’s detention authority?

Nope. Under current law, the Obama administration claims the authority to detain:

persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces.

That claim of authority is based on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (“AUMF”) passed by Congress shortly after the September 11 attacks, as informed by the law of war. The Bush Administration previously claimed very similar authority, albeit invoking not just the AUMF but also the inherent power of the President under Article II of the Constitution. In any event, such claims have been subjected to judicial challenge repeatedly, most commonly in the context of the Guantanamo detainee habeas litigation. As we explain below, the courts have had a decidedly mixed reaction in the pair of cases involving persons captured within the United States, but as for persons captured abroad, they have largely endorsed the government’s position. The D.C. Circuit, in fact, has tentatively adopted a definition of the class detainable under the AUMF that is, if anything, broader than what the administration seeks. While the administration–and now Congress–would detain only on the basis of “substantial support,” the D.C. Circuit has articulated a standard which would permit detention of those who “purposefully and materially support” the enemy, even if not substantially.

In light of all this, a law that writes the administration’s successful litigating position into statute cannot reasonably be said to expand the government’s detention authority. In fact, to the extent that the new statutory language will preempt the arguably broader D.C. Circuit definition, it may actually narrow it–if only very slightly. So let’s compare the language of the administration’s claimed authority (quoted above) to the language of the NDAA:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

They are almost verbatim the same. The NDAA is really a codification in statute of the existing authority the administration claims. It puts Congress’s stamp of approval behind that claim for the first time, and that’s no small thing. But it does not–notwithstanding the widespread belief to the contrary–expand it. Nobody who is not subject to detention today will become so when the NDAA goes into effect.

The one area in which the NDAA could theoretically be said to expand detention authority involves people held on the basis not of membership in an enemy group but mere support for one. As noted above, the government has long claimed this authority already, and the DC Circuit has in fact endorsed a slightly broader formulation. But so far, anyway, it has done so in dicta only–that is, not in any case where the fact pattern actually depended on the resolution of that issue. In theory, then, the circuit (or the Supreme Court) might at some point have concluded that support alone is insufficient to support a detention. The NDAA will ensure that this does not happen by making clear that independent support does count as a ground for detention (or at least it will do so as a matter of statutory interpretation; in theory, the door would remain open to some form of constitutional challenge, though it is difficult to see how that would work). So even as it marginally narrows the detainable class, the NDAA also tends to ensure that courts will not narrow the scope of that class further.


37 posted on 01/03/2012 12:20:55 PM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gimme1ibertee

No explanation is necessary for me. He voted for it. That is all I need to know.


38 posted on 01/03/2012 12:22:36 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: emax

In case it wasnt clear before, I am not givinv any kind of endoresment for this new bill and the new provisions as a whole. I am aware of how vague and sloppily written it is and I know full well that it would be easy for the govt to use it for purposes it was not intended to to-go after the perpetrators of 9/11 and anyone allied with Taliban or Al Qaeda. I was only trying to show some new perspectives, particularly in regard to how this bill relates to current law, and show some other voices of support and to try to have people rationally think things through before declaring Congressmen, in this case genuinely Conservative Congressmen- they once supported and respected to be part of some sinister plot to shred the Consitution and destroy our nation.


39 posted on 01/03/2012 12:28:23 PM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: emax
If obama did not need/want the law, why did he push it? There is some reason that he feels that he needs/wants it. Other than putting me in preventative detention, I do not see how it benefits me. I know that obama has no love or use for individuals such as myself.

You may believe that every word that comes from obama's mouth is gospel. I don't.

40 posted on 01/03/2012 12:29:50 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: emax

In case it wasnt clear before, I am not giving any kind of endoresment for this new bill and the new provisions as a whole. I am aware of how vague and sloppily written it is and I know full well that it would be easy for the govt to use it for purposes it was not intended to to-go after the perpetrators of 9/11 and anyone allied with Taliban or Al Qaeda. I was only trying to show some new perspectives, particularly in regard to how this bill relates to current law, and show some other voices of support and to try to have people rationally think things through before declaring Congressmen, in this case genuinely Conservative Congressmen- they once supported and respected to be part of some sinister plot to shred the Consitution and destroy our nation. And if someone can explain, by citing and explaining in proper legal terms sections of this bill, how it gives the govt new powers to “snatch and grab” US citizens and detain them forever, that it did not already have, then I will retract some or possibly all of my arguments. But I have not seen any yet.


41 posted on 01/03/2012 12:30:13 PM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sport

First off, the NDAA law has been passed every year for 48 years and so passing the NDAA law in the first place was clearly not new. And, again, those provisions were not supported and pushed only by Obama-they were supported by the majority of liberal and conservative elements of Congress. I know that Obama requested that a provision specifically exempting American citizens from detention be removed, but 1. Congress also voted against that sort fo Ammendment and again, Obama was not the only one who wanted it removed 2. There are legal complications that could have prevented such a clause from showing up on the bill-what if one Section was stated to not apply to US citizens, and by default all other sections were implied as pertaining to US citizens.

I am not a fan of all parts of this bill, but Obama is not the only one who wanted it. I dont beleive every word that comes out of Obama;s mouth as gospel-that’s why I started by posting a statement of support from a Conservaitve Senator and not Obama. And do I trust him to abide by his singing statement ? Not necessarily-but it shows that even he knows that the people and US military will hold him accountable if he does what posters here often say he will do. And of course, that is another subject for discusion entirely-the assumption that the US military would be just fine with detaining Americans at random and that Obama can now brainwash/control them to do whatever he wishes. Obama’s statement is not something he can quote him on-I know this-but it might suggest that he also knows the military cant be controlled by him against their will to do whatever he wants.


42 posted on 01/03/2012 12:40:17 PM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

LMAO!!! How do you find this stuff? Someone seriously took the time to upload a 10 hour video of that stupid cat? I think water boarding would be a cake walk compared to 10 hours of watching that. I could only take 60 seconds before thoughts of suicide creeped into my mind./s


43 posted on 01/03/2012 12:47:52 PM PST by mojitojoe (SCOTUS.... think about that when you decide to sit home and pout because your candidate didn't win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sport

That kind of rhetoric is is a form of smear tactic, entirely inappropriate, and tends to divide conservatives entirely unnecessarily.

Before you try to puut all of this argument into partisan rants, try to consider the conswquences of what you havee to say upon our prisoners of war and their fate at the hands of America’s enemies.


44 posted on 01/03/2012 12:48:15 PM PST by WhiskeyX (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) about the language of the legislation is coming from)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: sport

And also note, he would not be able to veto sections 1031 and 1032-which Congress passed and sent to him-without killing the entire NDAA bill. And that would have shut millions of people, including our troops, out of work for at laast several months and cause other kinds of chaos too.


45 posted on 01/03/2012 12:52:03 PM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LachlanMinnesota
No law should be acceptable to a citizen of this nation because they trust that the current leadership will not abuse it.

Amen

46 posted on 01/03/2012 12:58:00 PM PST by Theophilus (Not merely prolife, but prolific)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
?LMAO!!! How do you find this stuff?

Same way I found out that He-Man from He-Man And The Masters Of The Universe, is gay.

47 posted on 01/03/2012 1:00:06 PM PST by Lazamataz (Romney is the Pale Obama. That's all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

LMAO! I needed a few laughs today. Here’s one for you, don’t watch if you’re eating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZv5Wab4sAM


48 posted on 01/03/2012 1:17:11 PM PST by mojitojoe (SCOTUS.... think about that when you decide to sit home and pout because your candidate didn't win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Breto

sorry to learn of your warpped perspective.....


49 posted on 01/03/2012 1:27:38 PM PST by G Larry ("I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his Character.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: emax
"Together, these two sections do the following: they affirm the authority of the executive branch to act within our national interest and they provide the federal government with the tools that are needed to maintain our national security. This bill does NOT overturn the Posse Comitatus Act; the military will not be patrolling the streets. This bill does not take away your rights as a citizen or lawful permanent resident; the authority under this act does not take away one’s habeas rights. These sections do NOT take away an individual’s rights to equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, nor do they take away one’s due process rights afforded under the 5th or 14th. If this bill did such a thing, I would strongly oppose it."

Did anyone notice how section this was very ambiguous in the admission yet very specific in the denials?

Is a law needed to "affirm the authority of the executive branch to act within our national interest"? I thought that was in his Constitutional job description.

"...provide the federal government with the tools that are needed to maintain our national security." - seems like our federal government is excessively equipped already.

50 posted on 01/03/2012 1:54:10 PM PST by Theophilus (Not merely prolife, but prolific)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

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