Replies

Detention of American citizens indefinitely was addressed:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3107175/posts, Posts 20, 28, 31, 32.

A couple years ago but directly addresses the subject.

Post 32:
The final paragraph of my post comes from the source document and contrary to the hype, it points out that US citizen rights are protected.

The final paragraph of my post quotes: “LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS, SUBTITLE D—COUNTERTERRORISM, Section 1033—Habeas Corpus Rights:” “This section would state that nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is detained in the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40).”

The sections you reference, 1021-1022, are interesting.

Sec 1021 addresses “Extension of authority to make rewards for combating terrorism.”

It states: “(a) EXTENSION.—Section 127b(c)(3)(C) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2014’’.
(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report that outlines the future requirements and authorities to make rewards for combating terrorism. The report shall include—(1) an analysis of future requirements under section 127b of title 10, United States Code; (2) a detailed description of requirements for rewards in support of operations with allied forces; and (3) an overview of geographic combatant commander requirements through September 30, 2014.

As far as I can tell, no controversy there.

And Sec 1022 addresses; “Prohibition on use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the United States to house detainees transferred from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”

It states: “(a) IN GENERAL.—No amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2013 may be used to construct or modify any facility in the United States, its territories, or possessions to house any individual detained at Guantanamo for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense unless authorized by Congress.
(b) EXCEPTION.—The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not
apply to any modification of facilities at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
(c) INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO DEFINED.—In this
section, the term ‘‘individual detained at Guantanamo’’ has the meaning given that term in section 1028(f)(2).

As far as I can tell, this section stops the president from closing gitmo or transferring the slim from gitmo to the US. So, no controversy there.

Now, Sec 1028: “REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION,
GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES
AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.” With Sec 1028(f)(2) stating: “includes an assessment, in classified or unclassified form, of the capacity, willingness, and past practices (if applicable) of the foreign country or entity in relation to the Secretary’s certifications.”

Can’t see controversy there.

Unless there is another part of the source document that says otherwise, I go with the plainly written words in Sec 1033—”nothing shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus” to US citizens.

I think what we see/hear is the usual, and much needed, critical eye on the government examining potential areas of abuse. What I also see/hear, is a section that is clearly written to go after terrorist slim and protect US citizen rights-—but the section protecting the rights of US citizens is conveniently over-looked for some reason.

Therefore, I hypothesize, people are now reacting to alleged abuse written into the NDAA rather than challenging what others are telling them what to feel. I bristle at being told what to think about anything so I read source materials to find out if what I am being told is true or not.

I am tired of hype and over-heated rhetoric spewed for whatever aim. It baffles me why, with source materials out there, more people aren’t engaging in critical thinking; we presume the worst from our government (of course, as we should), but somehow we do not presume others may have their own agendas at play and therefore they are willingly misled when those nefarious people manipulate them for their own ends.

Cheers.