Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

avaistheone1

(14,626 posts)
Thu Jun 13, 2013, 07:46 PM Jun 2013

Indefinite Detention Of Americans Survives House Vote

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House of Representatives voted again Thursday to allow the indefinite military detention of Americans, blocking an amendment that would have barred the possibility.

Congress wrote that authority into law in the National Defense Authorization Act two years ago, prompting outrage from civil libertarians on the left and right. President Barack Obama signed the measure, but insisted his administration would never use it.

Supporters of detention argue that the nation needs to be able to arrest and jail suspected terrorists without trial, including Americans on U.S. soil, for as long as there is a war on terror. Their argument won, and the measure was defeated by a vote of 200 to 226.

But opponents, among them the Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who offered the amendment to end that authority, argued that such detention is a stain on the Constitution that unnecessarily militarizes U.S. law enforcement.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/indefinite-detention-americans_n_3437923.html

31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Indefinite Detention Of Americans Survives House Vote (Original Post) avaistheone1 Jun 2013 OP
The house of representatives is DonCoquixote Jun 2013 #1
What the fuck are they smoking in DC, to allow this shit to stand??? 99th_Monkey Jun 2013 #2
NO NO NO ...the problem is that they aren't smoking buds. L0oniX Jun 2013 #7
LOL n/t 99th_Monkey Jun 2013 #12
If they were smoking weed, they'd be too mellow to pass this shit... malthaussen Jun 2013 #18
Well, why not? Laelth Jun 2013 #3
Thanks, Mr. McCain, et al. I never thought the 6th amendment... DreamGypsy Jun 2013 #4
NO WONDER Congress has a 10% approval rating! alp227 Jun 2013 #5
10% seems too high Art_from_Ark Jun 2013 #28
G0d bless Ahmeddicca. L0oniX Jun 2013 #6
I'm beginning to think that the Tea Party atreides1 Jun 2013 #8
"President Barack Obama signed the measure, but insisted his administration would never use it." Hydra Jun 2013 #9
What about his successor? magellan Jun 2013 #15
That part stood out to me too sikofit3 Jun 2013 #22
Welcome to DU! Hydra Jun 2013 #23
Thank you! sikofit3 Jun 2013 #24
And when it was challenged christx30 Jun 2013 #29
Starting with the House of Representatives, then Demeter Jun 2013 #10
It's Obama's fault!!!! Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2013 #11
Obama would call John2 Jun 2013 #17
There are individuals in government who we elect who are corrupt. Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2013 #27
I can't say as I am surprised but it is a sad day in the US of A. nt Mojorabbit Jun 2013 #13
This would make the founders VOMIT. Faryn Balyncd Jun 2013 #14
Land of the free... *nt Alamuti Lotus Jun 2013 #16
226-200 malthaussen Jun 2013 #19
What's funny is that those who voted to strike it down are mostly far right and far left Ter Jun 2013 #26
K&R Solly Mack Jun 2013 #20
Since when does a law override the Bill of Rights? askeptic Jun 2013 #21
But due to the readings and interpretations of the Constitution christx30 Jun 2013 #30
It's not immediately clear to me what the current law says struggle4progress Jun 2013 #25
Congressmen/women who voted No are traitors to our country. L.A.dweller Jun 2013 #31
 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
2. What the fuck are they smoking in DC, to allow this shit to stand???
Thu Jun 13, 2013, 07:48 PM
Jun 2013

Must be some very evil weed indeed.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
7. NO NO NO ...the problem is that they aren't smoking buds.
Thu Jun 13, 2013, 09:17 PM
Jun 2013

If they were smoking weed they might have an excuse for the mind fuck that's being passed off as intelligence.

malthaussen

(17,065 posts)
18. If they were smoking weed, they'd be too mellow to pass this shit...
Fri Jun 14, 2013, 08:24 AM
Jun 2013

... then again, if you take a jerk and get him stoned, what have you got?

-- Mal

Laelth

(32,017 posts)
3. Well, why not?
Thu Jun 13, 2013, 07:53 PM
Jun 2013

I mean, seriously, people. If the 4th Amendment means nothing, why would you believe you had any habeas corpus rights?

Get with the program!

-Laelth

DreamGypsy

(2,252 posts)
4. Thanks, Mr. McCain, et al. I never thought the 6th amendment...
Thu Jun 13, 2013, 08:05 PM
Jun 2013

...was that big of a deal anyway.

From Senate Approves Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens in U.S, Dec 26, 2012:

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which was used two years ago to allow the government to indefinitely detain anyone, including U.S. citizens, has been approved again by the U.S. Senate. This time, however, lawmakers had the chance to add protections for Americans accused of terrorist ties, and decided against it.

A group of Democrats and Republicans pushed for an amendment to the NDAA that would have prohibited the military from detaining American citizens on U.S. soil. But then a House-Senate conference committee led by Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) removed the provision from the bill.


From Wikipedia Speedy Trial:

Criminal defendants have the right to a speedy trial. In Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), the Supreme Court laid down a four-part case-by-case balancing test for determining whether the defendant's speedy trial right has been violated in the case. The four factors are:

Length of delay: A delay of a year or more from the date on which the speedy trial right "attaches" (the date of arrest or indictment, whichever first occurs) was termed "presumptively prejudicial," but the Court has never explicitly ruled that any absolute time limit applies.
Reason for the delay: The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations (e.g., change of venue).
Time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right: If a defendant agrees to the delay when it works to his own benefit, he cannot later claim that he has been unduly delayed.
Degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused.

In Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434 (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that if the reviewing court finds that a defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated, then the indictment must be dismissed and/or the conviction overturned. The Court held that, since the delayed trial is the state action which violates the defendant's rights, no other remedy would be appropriate. Thus, a reversal or dismissal of a criminal case on speedy trial grounds means that no further prosecution for the alleged offense can take place.


I guess forever is not sufficiently "presumptively prejudicial".

atreides1

(16,046 posts)
8. I'm beginning to think that the Tea Party
Thu Jun 13, 2013, 09:21 PM
Jun 2013

Is the least of our worries...because America has put into place a new aristocracy and we call it the US Congress...the MIC along with corporations and the uber rich are the nobility, the only position not filled is that of an American Czar...but that can't be too far behind, as long as it's a white, Christian man!

Hydra

(14,459 posts)
9. "President Barack Obama signed the measure, but insisted his administration would never use it."
Thu Jun 13, 2013, 09:22 PM
Jun 2013

Uh huh...what about all of those people in Gitmo with no legal recourse?

I better shut up now before they scoop me up and do the same without a charge.

sikofit3

(145 posts)
22. That part stood out to me too
Fri Jun 14, 2013, 02:24 PM
Jun 2013

This is rich, I mean reading everything in the last month on one site such as the DU with out American Idol breaking up the thought process really makes one start to get terrified.

Hydra

(14,459 posts)
23. Welcome to DU!
Fri Jun 14, 2013, 02:35 PM
Jun 2013

And lots of us have been terrified at various revelations over the years. If you haven't seen the rest of the huge black iceberg this is pointing to, hopefully the posts we're putting out will give you the previous links to things over the years that are related to this.

Good luck and stay safe!

christx30

(6,241 posts)
29. And when it was challenged
Sat Jun 15, 2013, 09:49 AM
Jun 2013

and defeated, Obama fought hard and pressured the judge to change the ruling.
Obama says he wouldn't use it. Why fight hard to get and keep a weapon you're not going to use? I don't trust him on this issue.

 

Demeter

(85,373 posts)
10. Starting with the House of Representatives, then
Thu Jun 13, 2013, 10:09 PM
Jun 2013

So they can have a life-long fact-finding experience, instead of a multi-month holiday at taxpayer expense.

 

John2

(2,730 posts)
17. Obama would call
Fri Jun 14, 2013, 07:02 AM
Jun 2013

Americans cynical, if they think their Government is corrupt. I guess I'm cynical because I think they are corrupt.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
27. There are individuals in government who we elect who are corrupt.
Sat Jun 15, 2013, 02:10 AM
Jun 2013

But the government is you and I. Not some abstract boogeyman.

malthaussen

(17,065 posts)
19. 226-200
Fri Jun 14, 2013, 08:28 AM
Jun 2013

Look at the bright side. At least some members of Congress appear to realize that this is not a good idea. Compare that roll call to the Patriot Act.

-- Mal

 

Ter

(4,281 posts)
26. What's funny is that those who voted to strike it down are mostly far right and far left
Fri Jun 14, 2013, 05:24 PM
Jun 2013

Oh well, whatever works.

askeptic

(478 posts)
21. Since when does a law override the Bill of Rights?
Fri Jun 14, 2013, 02:15 PM
Jun 2013

Gosh, I was under the impression there was a procedure for amending the Constitution and I don't believe this is it.

If we allow these idiotic people to just pass laws as a sufficient method to negate our Constitutional rights, then I guess the idea that there is anything they can do that is unconstitutional is really fantasy now. They've managed to corrupt some of the most important guarantees in the Constitution, I guess we shouldn't be surprised they are expecting to negate the 1st, 5th, 6th and probably the 8th all in one.

Do you see ANY WAY to carve indefinite detention of American Citizens out of this?

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

And how can indefinite detention (possibly for life) without benefit of trial not also violate the 8th Amendment?

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I am going to have to try to find a free country to move to...

christx30

(6,241 posts)
30. But due to the readings and interpretations of the Constitution
Sat Jun 15, 2013, 09:56 AM
Jun 2013

it seems that as long as the government can demonstrate need to do something, they can do it. They can violate the 4th amendment as long as they need to do so. They can use the Commerce Clause to do whatever they want to because they need to do so. I'll bet they could restrict speech or force us to quarter troops in our home should the need arise.
And people here will cheer them on. "They're protecting us!" or "They're giving us health care!" or "They're saving the life of a bunny! Don't you care about the bunny?!"

And these days, the most free country looks like New Zealand.

struggle4progress

(118,034 posts)
25. It's not immediately clear to me what the current law says
Fri Jun 14, 2013, 03:15 PM
Jun 2013

A Sec 1021 COVERED PERSON is one "who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks .. on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible" or (?) "was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces.. 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"

A Sec 1022 COVERED 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" who "participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners" or (?) who "was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces .. 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"

Sec 1021(e) of NDAA says: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States"

Sec 1022(b) of NDAA says: &quot 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"

See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ81/pdf/PLAW-112publ81.pdf

L.A.dweller

(486 posts)
31. Congressmen/women who voted No are traitors to our country.
Sat Jun 15, 2013, 03:42 PM
Jun 2013

Supporters of detention argue that the nation needs to be able to arrest and jail suspected terrorists without trial, including Americans on U.S. soil, for as long as there is a war on terror. Their argument won, and the measure was defeated by a vote of 200 to 226.

View the votes: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll228.xml

There will always be a war on terror.

Get the traitors out of office!

They wipe their butts with our Constitutional rights and protections.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Indefinite Detention Of A...