• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provisions...

Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

I don't know if this has been brought up elsewhere in the thread, but the Obama administration isn't the only one who needs to be slammed - the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and the House who wrote this legislation needs to be kicked out.

I agree and brought this up earlier in the thread. I would also like the know the stand on this by each GOP candidates for president. Ron Paul is the only one I have heard come out and oppose it.

Does anyone know if the GOP candidates are on record opposing the Patriot Act?
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

How does it do that exactly? I thought the power already came from a law (the PATRIOT Act) as you stated.

Does it do so for U.S. citizens or on U.S. soil, given the language from the bill you cited? Or are you concerned about it for everyone, not just Americans?

These are all honest questions, not challenges.

The power is applies to US citizens and legal residents. It solidifies and codifies the indefinite detention of US citizens as Section 1031, subsection C states:


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.


The AUMF states that


the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.​


However, under the NDAA allows for the President to pursue Al Qaeda and it associated groups all over the world and since you can't 100% stamp out AQ and their buddies, you essentially have a forever war.

EDIT: For more info on this: Look here (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/congress_endorsing_military_detention_a_new_aumf/singleton/)
 
Last edited:
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

I have the right to ask questions & shall continue to ask questions, whether you approve or not. :)

Never said otherwise. Just said what I said.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

The power is applies to US citizens and legal residents. It solidifies and codifies the indefinite detention of US citizens as Section 1031, subsection C states:


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.


The AUMF states that


the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.​


However, under the NDAA allows for the President to pursue Al Qaeda and it associated groups all over the world and since you can't 100% stamp out AQ and their buddies, you essentially have a forever war.

EDIT: For more info on this: Look here (Congress endorsing military detention, a new AUMF - Salon.com)

I still see nothing here.

The AUMF says nothing about detention.
The bill language you mentioned does have indefinite detention, which we already know is being used, but contains language saying it can't be used against U.S. citizens or on U.S. soil. Not that indefinite detention isn't a concern already, but how does this change anything?
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

I don't know if this has been brought up elsewhere in the thread, but the Obama administration isn't the only one who needs to be slammed - the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and the House who wrote this legislation needs to be kicked out.

Most defininately.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

I still see nothing here.

The AUMF says nothing about detention.
The bill language you mentioned does have indefinite detention, which we already know is being used, but contains language saying it can't be used against U.S. citizens or on U.S. soil. Not that indefinite detention isn't a concern already, but how does this change anything?


Actually it can be used against US citizens as the bill states that "the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." However, the wording of the bill is extremely important as it states quite clearly that the military detaining US citizens is not a requirement, meaning that it isn't mandatory that you be detained. Yet that doesn't mean that the US military doesn't have the option of detaining US citizens.

In addition to this, Section 1031 includes US citizens as it states that the indefinite detention targets people who are "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." However, there is no definition of "substantial support" or "associated forces" and Obama has expanded the definition of terrorism to include groups that have no connection with 9/11.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

Actually it can be used against US citizens as the bill states that "the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." However, the wording of the bill is extremely important as it states quite clearly that the military detaining US citizens is not a requirement, meaning that it isn't mandatory that you be detained. Yet that doesn't mean that the US military doesn't have the option of detaining US citizens.

Yes, someone brought that up before. THAT is disturbing. Weird and scary language.

In addition to this, Section 1031 includes US citizens as it states that the indefinite detention targets people who are "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." However, there is no definition of "substantial support" or "associated forces" and Obama has expanded the definition of terrorism to include groups that have no connection with 9/11.

Except it contains an explicit clause that says "except for U.S. citizens."
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

This is as much info as I've found at this point on the GOP candidate's positions on the Patriot Act and torture:

"TERRORISM:



Bachmann: Expand Guantanamo, no Miranda or constitutional rights for foreign terrorist suspects. "I would be willing to use waterboarding," now banned, in interrogations.



Gingrich: Supports extending and strengthening investigative powers of Patriot Act. Supports continued use of Guantanamo Bay detention for suspected terrorists. Supported creation of Homeland Security apparatus, because "we need some capacity to respond to massive events." In 2009, said of waterboarding: "It's not something we should do."



Huntsman: Said Homeland Security Department has been heavy-handed, conveying a "fortress security mentality that is not American." Says on interrogations: "We should not torture. Waterboarding is torture."



Paul: Opposes the surveillance and search powers of the Patriot Act. Says terrorists would not be motivated to attack America if the U.S. ended its military presence abroad. "The Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty." Says: "Waterboarding is torture. And it's illegal under international law and under our law. It's also immoral. And it's also very impractical. There's no evidence that you really get reliable evidence."



Perry: Said it was "unprincipled" for Republicans to vote for creation of the Homeland Security Department. Supports continued use of Guantanamo Bay detention for suspected terrorists and extension of Patriot Act. Would seek to privatize Transportation Security Administration and decertify its unions. Said U.S. interrogators should "use any technique that they can" short of torture, which he did not define.



Romney: No constitutional rights for foreign terrorism suspects. In 2007, refused to rule out use of waterboarding to interrogate terrorist suspects. In 2011, his campaign says he does not consider waterboarding to be torture.



Santorum: Defends creation of Homeland Security Department as an attempt to fix a "complete mess" in the domestic security apparatus. Voted to reauthorize Patriot Act. Says airport screeners should employ profiling; "Muslims would be someone you'd look at, absolutely." Supports continued use of Guantanamo Bay detention for suspected terrorists. Says waterboarding has proved effective."

Homeland Security Today: Positions of GOP Candidates on Terrorism, Immigration, Other Security Issues



From this it appears that Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman are the only two that oppose both the Patriot Act and waterboarding.
 
Last edited:
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

Yes, someone brought that up before. THAT is disturbing. Weird and scary language.



Except it contains an explicit clause that says "except for U.S. citizens."

Please show me that clause as I read the bill and Section 1031 does not exempt US citizens.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

these protest areas are for security purposes. in places like NYC, you need a balance between freedom & safety.

sorry if folks don't like it, but we in NYC think it makes sense.

Here's hoping that are completely ignored this time around.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

You agreed with the ACLU. Your conservative card, I want it, now.
He doesn't have one. He AdamT want to make this a Bush thread. Sit back and give it time; it must mature.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

Please show me that clause as I read the bill and Section 1031 does not exempt US citizens.

1031 isn't the section on that anymore. I can't find it now anywhere in the final bill. Look for yourself. Make sure you are looking at the final version (enrolled). I'll keep looking.

EDIT. Found it, in 1032, in the "public print" not the enrolled version (don't know why).

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.

(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.

And reading this, it appears to resolve the "requirement" thing too - the military is "required" to hold someone in custody, unless and until they are transferred to civilian court or released, and that's why it says "this requirement."
 
Last edited:
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

The worst thing Obama has done. He should have vetoed this, might lose my vote.

I agree with you, except he never actually had my vote. I voted for a write-in in 2008. I might have voted for Obama this time, if the GOP candidate was as piss-poor as BushLite and Bubblebrain was in 2008. But this kind of crap scares the hell out of me. If he had a pair of balls, an ounce of integrity, and any real concern about the citizens of this country, he'd have vetoed this totalitarian turd.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

I agree with you, except he never actually had my vote. I voted for a write-in in 2008. I might have voted for Obama this time, if the GOP candidate was as piss-poor as BushLite and Bubblebrain was in 2008. But this kind of crap scares the hell out of me. If he had a pair of balls, an ounce of integrity, and any real concern about the citizens of this country, he'd have vetoed this totalitarian turd.

I believe it was a political vote, he didn't want to veto it because then the republicans would be able to drive home the message that he doesn't care about national defense and all that crap, but when it comes to something like this, anyone with integrity would be willing to sacrifice the next election and not let this unconstitutional crap become law. Just another sign of how disappointing he has been, I voted for a liberal, not Bush-Lite.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

I believe it was a political vote, he didn't want to veto it because then the republicans would be able to drive home the message that he doesn't care about national defense and all that crap, but when it comes to something like this, anyone with integrity would be willing to sacrifice the next election and not let this unconstitutional crap become law. Just another sign of how disappointing he has been, I voted for a liberal, not Bush-Lite.

I agree, and I think we should keep pressure on Obama about this, as well as the GOP candidates who also have supported this violation of the Constitution.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

these protest areas are for security purposes. in places like NYC, you need a balance between freedom & safety.

sorry if folks don't like it, but we in NYC think it makes sense.

Mr. Franklin would say that you deserve neither.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

Mr. Franklin would say that you deserve neither.

That's okay. Sure there's plenty of people happy to say he doesn't have either.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

I believe it was a political vote, he didn't want to veto it because then the republicans would be able to drive home the message that he doesn't care about national defense and all that crap, but when it comes to something like this, anyone with integrity would be willing to sacrifice the next election and not let this unconstitutional crap become law. Just another sign of how disappointing he has been, I voted for a liberal, not Bush-Lite.

With all of the backlash this has caused, I can't see how ANYONE, Obama especially, could have considered a veto political suicide. All he'd have to say is "I refuse to pass a bill that includes the indefinite detention of blah blah blah," and he could have turned it into a massive stake to the Conservative heart. If anyone could have and would have used this as a political tool, it would have been Obama.

But, instead, he signed it. That should tell us something. Sadly, though, so far I've seen widespread condemnation of conservatives for this bill... even though it had bipartisan support.... and was signed by the President...
 
Last edited:
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

I believe it was a political vote, he didn't want to veto it because then the republicans would be able to drive home the message that he doesn't care about national defense and all that crap, but when it comes to something like this, anyone with integrity would be willing to sacrifice the next election and not let this unconstitutional crap become law. Just another sign of how disappointing he has been, I voted for a liberal, not Bush-Lite.

Then the solution isn't to sign it.

Rather, the solution is to ask conservative voters why their own Republican Senators and Representatives favor overreaching government powers, especially when it comes to using the military for law enforcement and granting it arrest powers.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said. "They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer,". "They should be held humanely in military custody and interrogated about why they joined al Qaeda and what they were going to do to all of us."

If McCain is Bushlite then this guy is BushOnTap. I'm surprised the American people don't hold all the congressional members and ask them "what were you going to do to us"?
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

1031 isn't the section on that anymore. I can't find it now anywhere in the final bill. Look for yourself. Make sure you are looking at the final version (enrolled). I'll keep looking.

EDIT. Found it, in 1032, in the "public print" not the enrolled version (don't know why).



And reading this, it appears to resolve the "requirement" thing too - the military is "required" to hold someone in custody, unless and until they are transferred to civilian court or released, and that's why it says "this requirement."

However, I noted before that Section 1031 does include US citizens. Thus, the two sections, 1031 and 1032, contradict each other.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

Then the solution isn't to sign it.

Rather, the solution is to ask conservative voters why their own Republican Senators and Representatives favor overreaching government powers, especially when it comes to using the military for law enforcement and granting it arrest powers.

Democrats would be wise to do the same, methinks. The bill did enjoy bipartisan support, after all.
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

With all of the backlash this has caused, I can't see how ANYONE, Obama especially, could have considered a veto political suicide. All he'd have to say is "I refuse to pass a bill that includes the indefinite detention of blah blah blah," and he could have turned it into a massive stake to the Conservative heart. If anyone could have and would have used this as a political tool, it would have been Obama.

But, instead, he signed it. That should tell us something. Sadly, though, so far I've seen widespread condemnation of conservatives for this bill... even though it had bipartisan support.... and was signed by the President...

Do you think that maybe it might be telling you that Levin's accusations were correct?

Senator Carl Levin: Obama Required US Citizens To Be Included In Indefinite Detention!
 
Re: ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill That Includes Detainee Provision

could you possibly find a more biased source?

There are sources all over. I posted from KOS yesterday when someone else though they would try and simply dismiss the idea that perhaps Levin never said this and it was just made up.

Obama had no problem targeting and killing an American citizen so this is somehow some biased conspiracy? The ACLU has now taken up with the Rush?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...tain-Americans-indefinitely,-but-asked-for-it!!!!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom