Indefinite Military Detention Of US Citizens Win For Terrori

Indefinite Military Detention Of U.S. Citizens Is A Win For Terrorists, Former Admiral Says

The National Defense Authorization Act, passed by the Senate just over a week ago after a heated debate, includes a provision that requires the military to hold foreign-born terrorism suspects, and also lets the military grab U.S. citizens for indefinite detention.

To former Adm. John Hutson, who was Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 1997 to 2000 and is dean emeritus of the University of New Hampshire School of Law, the idea that the United States is chipping away at one of its fundamental principles of civilian law enforcement is a win for terrorists.

"The enemy is just laughing over this, because they will have gotten another victory," Hutson told The Huffington Post. "There'll be one more victory. There won't be any bloodshed or immediate bloodshed, there's not a big explosion, except in a metaphorical sense, but it is a victory nonetheless for the enemy. And it's a self-inflicted wound."

"In this war, the enemy doesn't have to win," Hutson said. "They can cause us to do things we wouldn't otherwise do, such as indefinite detentions, in the name of fighting a war," he said, noting that the country has already subjected itself to invasive scrutiny that would not have been tolerated before Sept. 11, 2001.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/1 ... f=politics

Yes, we should be so proud... Between the [un]Patriot Act; the TSA and now this obscenity, the terrorists must be laughing themselves silly... (Well, all but Osama bin Laden, and the 30+ other dead guys...) They've accomplished so much...and we did it for them.

LadyJazzer wrote:

Indefinite Military Detention Of U.S. Citizens Is A Win For Terrorists, Former Admiral Says

The National Defense Authorization Act, passed by the Senate just over a week ago after a heated debate, includes a provision that requires the military to hold foreign-born terrorism suspects, and also lets the military grab U.S. citizens for indefinite detention.

To former Adm. John Hutson, who was Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 1997 to 2000 and is dean emeritus of the University of New Hampshire School of Law, the idea that the United States is chipping away at one of its fundamental principles of civilian law enforcement is a win for terrorists.

"The enemy is just laughing over this, because they will have gotten another victory," Hutson told The Huffington Post. "There'll be one more victory. There won't be any bloodshed or immediate bloodshed, there's not a big explosion, except in a metaphorical sense, but it is a victory nonetheless for the enemy. And it's a self-inflicted wound."

"In this war, the enemy doesn't have to win," Hutson said. "They can cause us to do things we wouldn't otherwise do, such as indefinite detentions, in the name of fighting a war," he said, noting that the country has already subjected itself to invasive scrutiny that would not have been tolerated before Sept. 11, 2001.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/1 ... f=politics

Yes, we should be so proud... Between the [un]Patriot Act; the TSA and now this obscenity, the terrorists must be laughing themselves silly... (Well, all but Osama bin Laden, and the 30+ other dead guys...) They've accomplished so much...and we did it for them.

This is (as it should be) legislation that was put in not by the military but by the civilian Congress that we the military take our orders from. The Sec of Defense tried to get them to pull that out of the bill. None of the military agrees with this either. Not our job, or was not our job,

LadyJazzer wrote:

Indefinite Military Detention Of U.S. Citizens Is A Win For Terrorists, Former Admiral Says

The National Defense Authorization Act, passed by the Senate just over a week ago after a heated debate, includes a provision that requires the military to hold foreign-born terrorism suspects, and also lets the military grab U.S. citizens for indefinite detention.

To former Adm. John Hutson, who was Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 1997 to 2000 and is dean emeritus of the University of New Hampshire School of Law, the idea that the United States is chipping away at one of its fundamental principles of civilian law enforcement is a win for terrorists.

"The enemy is just laughing over this, because they will have gotten another victory," Hutson told The Huffington Post. "There'll be one more victory. There won't be any bloodshed or immediate bloodshed, there's not a big explosion, except in a metaphorical sense, but it is a victory nonetheless for the enemy. And it's a self-inflicted wound."

"In this war, the enemy doesn't have to win," Hutson said. "They can cause us to do things we wouldn't otherwise do, such as indefinite detentions, in the name of fighting a war," he said, noting that the country has already subjected itself to invasive scrutiny that would not have been tolerated before Sept. 11, 2001.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/1 ... f=politics

Yes, we should be so proud... Between the [un]Patriot Act; the TSA and now this obscenity, the terrorists must be laughing themselves silly... (Well, all but Osama bin Laden, and the 30+ other dead guys...) They've accomplished so much...and we did it for them.

Didn't this bill pass with a basically bipartisan vote?

Obama has promised to veto it. I hope, for once, he follows through with that threat.

LadyJazzer wrote: Obama has promised to veto it. I hope, for once, he follows through with that threat.

Ah... that's why it was passed with bipartisan support... the socialists on the left passed it so they could take the fall for their Messiah Obama and then Obama will sweep in, cape and veto pen in hand, and save us from the big, bad government intrusion. That won't get a pass in fly over country. It's too evident a scam.

Will the Senate even vote on it?

This is section 1032 of the bill. It does not say American citizens will be detained but are exempt from this. Also according to this it must be during hostilities against the United States

(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
( 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.
( 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.

FredHayek wrote: Will the Senate even vote on it?

The NDAA bill, which passed 97-3 in the Senate, would fund a huge swathe of military operations for 2012. But tucked into the bill are provisions dealing with detention of terrorism suspects that cut deeply into the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of U.S. citizens in the post-9/11 era. Now referred to by some as the “indefinite detention bill,” it has caused a firestorm of controversy from disparate corners of government and American society.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/can-the ... out-trial/

navycpo7 wrote: This is section 1032 of the bill. It does not say American citizens will be detained but are exempt from this. Also according to this it must be during hostilities against the United States

[snip]

Wrong...

U.S. Citizens suspected of terrorism and caught on U.S. soil forfeit their rights to due process and the presumption of innocence underlying the Constitution.

That appears to be the current position of the Senate, according to many legal analysts and some in Congress, unless President Obama vetoes the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed on Tuesday.

The controversial components of the bill can be broken down into two parts. The first questionable portion of the bill (section 1031) explicitly exempts U.S. citizens, and according to Slate, states that the government would be mandated to place into military custody:

The second provision (section 1032), however, does not include an exemption for U.S. citizens, and would give the government “the legal authority to keep people suspected of terrorism in military custody, indefinitely and without trial.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/can-the ... out-trial/

A Google search will bring you to the many expert opinions stating that this bill will allow the arrests and detentions.

That's interesting... But it appears to be Section 1031 where the problem lies.... (Beginning on Page 418...)

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112h ... 1540pp.pdf

Yeah, I'm sure the Justice Department, Obama, and Ret. Adm. John Hutson, who was Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 1997 to 2000, are all mistaken about what's in the bill.........Not....