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
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)a true blight upon the nation.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Must be some very evil weed indeed.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)If they were smoking weed they might have an excuse for the mind fuck that's being passed off as intelligence.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)malthaussen
(17,065 posts)... then again, if you take a jerk and get him stoned, what have you got?
-- Mal
Laelth
(32,017 posts)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)...was that big of a deal anyway.
From Senate Approves Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens in U.S, Dec 26, 2012:
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:
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".
alp227
(31,960 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)atreides1
(16,046 posts)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)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.
magellan
(13,257 posts)So he won't use it. Someone else might. Powers granted....
sikofit3
(145 posts)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)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)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)So they can have a life-long fact-finding experience, instead of a multi-month holiday at taxpayer expense.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)John2
(2,730 posts)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)But the government is you and I. Not some abstract boogeyman.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)malthaussen
(17,065 posts)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)Oh well, whatever works.
Solly Mack
(90,740 posts)askeptic
(478 posts)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)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)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: " 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)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.