Forum Post: National Lawyer's Guild Condemns NDAA provisions on indefinite detention
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 1, 2012, 11:58 p.m. EST by SpartacusTheSlave
(60)
from Las Vegas, NV
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
When the National Lawyer's Guild condemns a a fellow lawyer President, you know he has been bought:
http://www.nlg.org/news/announcements/nlg-condemns-ndaa-provisions/
Obama now back peddling on NDAA, by using confusing, prevaricating, Orwellian double speak. Is there any reason why we should trust him? Can he vouch for all future presidents?
Democrats now rising up to defeat Obama:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/01/progressives-plan-to-challenge-obama-in-iowa/
democrats in congress voted for the passage of the bill
[Removed]
The issue right now is the interpretation of the word "requirement" in HR1540 Title X Subtitle D Sec.1022(b) found here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf#page=266
Two legal schools of thought currently exist on the subject.
For the position that US Citizen ARE subject to possible detention, quoting Constitutional and civil rights litigator Glenn Greenwald:
"The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the "requirement" of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention"
Greenwald states in the article,"The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood."
The full article is here: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/#comments
For the position that US citizens are EXEMPT from the detention provisions, Benjamin Wittes (senior fellow in Governance Studies) & Robert Chesney (non-resident senior fellow in Governance Studies) at the Brookings Institute state:
"Section 1022 purports not merely to authorize but to require military custody for a subset of those who are subject to detention under Section 1021. In particular, it requires that the military hold "a covered person" pending disposition under the law of war if that person is "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 is participating in an attack against the United States or its coalition partners. The president is allowed to waive this requirement for national security reasons. The provision exempts U.S. citizens entirely, and it applies to lawful permanent resident aliens for conduct within the United States to whatever extent the Constitution permits. It requires the administration to promulgate procedures to make sure its requirements do not interfere with basic law enforcement functions in counterterrorism cases. And it insists that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody."
The Brookings article can be found here:
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
Wittes and Chesney state in the article,"The NDAA for better or worse sets military detention as a quasi-default position for covered persons, and selecting a different option through either of these methods will be a visible, discrete act that can then become the basis for criticism."
Now given the clear conflicting interpretation amongst "experts", imagine the confusion for the lay people and the non-lawyer, working level law enforcement and military types that have to execute and interpret this law with a "minimum" understanding of the law.
Both parties agree that the Bill has obvious confusing wording elements. It is the mere possibility for misinterpretation and abuse by law enforcement as well as current and future administrations (regardless of the Presidential Signing Statement), that is the disturbing part of the Bill's passage.
Ultimately it comes down to how much research you do, what interpretation to which you subscribe, and how you think it may impact you and your actions going forward.
As a Flash update pro-con commentary from Lawfare: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the-ndaa-the-good-the-bad-and-the-laws-of-war-part-i/.
BTW, The Obama administration maneuvered the Senate to remove the original language that protects us on November 17, 2011. This would set up the Senate (and Congress) for a poltical backlash. This allowed sympathy for Obama when he actually signed the bill.
Suggested viewing: Senate Session Nov 17,2011 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSession4951/start/16792/stop/17119”.
Well, tg for the progressives in Iowa then.
As to O and his crib notes I say; "What a weak man, reduced to writing comments on the of margins of laws"
The absolute worst part for me is accepting that all those people who complained he was just a community organizer, were right.
Explanation of Bill of Rights:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i-0K6yWnK4&feature=related
An excellent summary of Obama's treason:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdxXhn3We7U&feature=player_embedded
[Removed]
[Removed]