home

Senate Passes NDAA, 98 to 0

The Senate has unanimously passed its $631 billion version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), by a vote of 98 to 0. The House version was $634 billion.

Feinstein's Amendment to bar military detention of American citizens was agreed to on November 29, but so was Sen. Kelly Ayotte's Amendment, which permanently bars the use of funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees. [More...]

Ayotte's Amendment adds a new section to the bill:

SEC. 1032. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR THE TRANSFER OR RELEASE OF INDIVIDUALS FROM UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.

No authorized to be appropriated funds may be used to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within the United States, its territories, or possessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who--

(1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and

(2) is or was held on or after January 20, 2009, at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department of Defense.

Feinstein's Amendment says:

SEC. 1032. PROHIBITION ON THE INDEFINITE DETENTION OF CITIZENS AND LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS.

Section 4001 of title 18, United States Code, is amended.....

(b)(1) An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.

(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2013.

(3) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to authorize the detention of a citizen of the United States, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, or any other person who is apprehended in the United States.

According to one of the quoted analysts:

The biggest thing about the [2012] NDAA was that you weren't getting a trial ... Nothing in here says that you'll make it to an Article III court so it literally does nothing," Dan Johnson, founder of People Against the NDAA, told BI. "It's a bunch of words, basically,"

Afran noted that the newest version actually goes further than the NDAA that's now in effect.

"The new statute actually states that persons lawfully in the U.S. can be detained under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force [AUMF]. The original (the statute we are fighting in court) never went that far," Afran said. "Therefore, under the guise of supposedly adding protection to Americans, the new statute actually expands the AUMF to civilians in the U.S."

The bill now goes to Conference. The Conferees are:

Levin; Lieberman; Reed; Akaka; Nelson NE; Webb; McCaskill; Udall CO; Hagan; Begich; Manchin; Shaheen; Gillibrand; Blumenthal; McCain; Inhofe; Sessions; Chambliss; Wicker; Brown MA; Portman; Ayotte; Collins; Graham; Cornyn; Vitter.

This is the passed House version.

< State Releases New George Zimmerman Discovery | ABC Poll: 57% Support Hillary 2016 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Anne was right. (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by lentinel on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 08:16:33 AM EST
    "The new statute actually states that persons lawfully in the U.S. can be detained under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force [AUMF]. The original (the statute we are fighting in court) never went that far," Afran said. "Therefore, under the guise of supposedly adding protection to Americans, the new statute actually expands the AUMF to civilians in the U.S."

    And with pitbulls like McCain and Lieberman et al in the Conference, and a lack of strong progressive leadership from the executive branch, we can rest assured that our civil liberties will continue their bipartisan trip to oblivion.

    Actually, what I think I said was that (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 08:38:47 AM EST
    it seemed to open the door to detention of US citizens who are outside the country.

    Isn't it interesting the huge amount of air time and media attention paid to a faux crisis - the fiscal cliff - while not a peep has been uttered or attention paid to the NDAA, which represents a further incursion on our rights and freedoms?

    Well, maybe "interesting" isn't the right word; maybe "disgusting" or "shameful" would be better.

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#7)
    by lentinel on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 11:19:30 AM EST
    are, of course, correct.

    I think what I immediately reacted to was your conclusion that legislation presented to us as protecting our rights and freedoms was actually legislation that diminished them.

    Parent

    What do you expect? (none / 0) (#9)
    by unitron on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 05:14:28 PM EST

    After all, there are Kardashians to cover.

    Parent
    Somehow I doubt (none / 0) (#3)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 08:53:45 AM EST
    that the Senate bill actually authorizes 1000 time more money than did House bill (cf. "billion" vs. "million").  And I agree that Feinstein's ineptly worded "protective" provision would have been pretty meaningless, if not counterproductive.  But you say that it failed.  So what is the language in the new version of the NDAA that passed that seems to authorize nonjudicial detention of U.S. citizens or lawful residents, whether arrested/captured inside the U.S. or outside?  Can someone point to it?

    Peter, here's a link to the (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 09:40:41 AM EST
    ACLU's letter to Senators, asking that they not vote for the Feinstein amendment, and it reads in part:

    Unfortunately, the Feinstein amendment fails to address a central concern raised in the public debates: the specter of the military being used to police our streets and detain individuals on U.S. soil. The bill also unintentionally reinforces the false and discriminatory notion that due process protections are only afforded to some - not all - persons within the United States. For these reasons, while we very much want to work with the sponsors of the amendment and are open to supporting a revised version of the Feinstein amendment, we oppose the amendment in its current form.

    The constitutional requirements of due process of law apply to all persons within the United States. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution states that "No person shall be...deprived of...liberty...without due process of law." Moreover, we are very concerned that the Feinstein amendment implicitly authorizes domestic military detention. By seeking to protect only United States citizens and legal permanent residents, the amendment could be read to imply that indefinite military detention of any other persons apprehended within the United States was authorized in 2001 and was lawful. In addition, the clause "unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention" could be read to imply that there are no constitutional obstacles to Congress enacting a statute that would authorize the domestic military detention of any person in the United States.

    So, what's the clause that's in the NDAA?

    "Nothing in the AUMF or the 2012 NDAA shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is lawfully in the United States when detained pursuant to the AUMF and who is otherwise entitled to the availability of such writ or such rights."

    Here's some analysis you may want to weigh in on (link):

    ...we offer another interpretation from Bruce Afran, a lawyer for the group of journalists and activists suing the government over the 2012 NDAA.

    Afran explained that the new provision gives U.S. citizens a right to go to civilian (i.e. Article III) court based on "any [applicable] constitutional rights," but since there are are no rules in place to exercise this right, detained U.S. citizens currently have no way to gain access to lawyers, family or the court itself once they are detained within the military.

    [snip]

    Afran noted that the newest version actually goes further than the NDAA that's now in effect.

    "The new statute actually states that persons lawfully in the U.S. can be detained under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force [AUMF]. The original (the statute we are fighting in court) never went that far," Afran said. "Therefore, under the guise of supposedly adding protection to Americans, the new statute actually expands the AUMF to civilians in the U.S."

    [snip]

    The newest version of the NDAA seems to be equating the AUMF and section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA--which the government has argued all along--and thereby codifies precisely what the plaintiffs are fighting in court.

    [snip]

    The bottom line, according to Afran, is that the NDAA "is still unconstitutional because it allows citizens or persons in the U.S. to be held in military custody, a position that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held is unconstitutional."

    Thoughts?


    Parent

    Di Fi the war profiteer (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 09:49:16 AM EST
    You should see the mansion she and hubby bought on the Gold Coast in SF with all their Iraq blood money. No surprise she tries to salve her conscience with a empty nothing of an amendment. Disgusting folks on every branch.

    Parent
    Peter, it was 629 billion (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 10:22:43 AM EST
    From the article I linked to:

    The $631 billion bill clocked in at $230 million less than President Obama's budget request, and the Senate's bill is about $3 billion under the House version.


    Parent
    Of course it was (none / 0) (#8)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 12:16:33 PM EST
    I was just making a little joke out of the typo, which I am glad to see you fixed.

    Parent
    Lucky we reelected Obama, eh? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:07:20 PM EST
    He's sure to veto this and keep our constitutional rights safe.