Dancin_In_Anson: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Hahahaha

Start shootin', tex.

Traitors to the constitution. Every single one of those farkers.

Welcome to the battlefield, civilians. Hope you enjoy your indefinite stay in military prison.

1787-2011?

Awful late in issuing that death certificate, doc.

Correction: 1787-2001

if you think this bill is a good idea, read this (new window). (a first-hand account of the youngest inmate at guantanmo)

Sometimes they showed you the ugly face: torturing, torturing without asking questions. Sometimes I said, 'Yes, whatever you ask, I'll say yes,' because I just wanted torture to stop. But the next day, I said: 'No, I said yes yesterday because of torture.' My first or second interrogator said to me: 'Mohammed, I know you're innocent but I'm doing my job. I have children to feed. I don't want to lose my job.'

Even Scalia would vote to strike this one down.

Meh, we warned you teabagger douchebags about this while you were still wetting your pants over 9/11, but you were not interested, so fark you in the ear.

It's easy to grant government power, but very hard to make them give it up.

so basically Osama is still winning from the grave?

From: The Library of Congress, search for S. 1867

Subtitle D--Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are 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.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(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

(B) 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.

(B) 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.

British people spell 'defense' funny.

Codenamechaz: Uh...He dropped his veto threat because they removed the thing about detaining citizens. It now just only talks about detaining terrorists.

Incorrect. The only thing that changes if you are a citizen is that military detention is not required, it's just optional.

Obama's veto threat was about 1032 (c), because as originally worded, the military taking jurisdiction over an individual would require the law enforcement community and IC to turn over all investigations, causing a total clusterfark. This was accidental and quickly fixed.

The courts are now the last defense of the 4th Amendment.

Genevieve Marie: Codenamechaz: Uh...He dropped his veto threat because they removed the thing about detaining citizens. It now just only talks about detaining terrorists.

So all you have to do now is accuse an American citizen of conspiring with terrorists and you can arrest that citizen and detain them at Guatanamo indefinitely.

There's no potential for abuse there at all, no sir.

You could do that after 2001, you been farking asleep? Bush's cronies put these laws on the book originally.

Obama didn't deliver on a promise? *checks calendar* Ended in "Y," just as I suspected!

/liberal
/Of course, the solution is an even MORE conservative president!!! (obligatory facepalm-worthy assumption that will be drawn from this)

Genevieve Marie: So all you have to do now is accuse an American citizen of conspiring with terrorists and you can arrest that citizen and detain them at Guatanamo indefinitely.

And the only way one has any recourse is to sue to challenge your status as an enemy combatant, but good luck getting a fair assessment. And that benefit is only granted to US citizens, which is travesty on top of travesty.

stpauler: But another conservative senator, Rand Paul, a strong libertarian, has said "detaining citizens without a court trial is not American" and that if the law passes "the terrorists have won".

That statement made more sense than anything else the man has ever said.

AntiNerd: Even Scalia would vote to strike this one down.

Can't go to the supreme court if there's no trial.
Somebody tries to sue? "Combatant" them away.

Codenamechaz: Uh...He dropped his veto threat because they removed the thing about detaining citizens. It now just only talks about detaining terrorists.

The veto threat pertained to how the bill actually took a sliver of power from the feds and delegated it to different authorities. Obama has no quarrels with the actual "detain anyone in the country for shiats and giggles" provisions.

zusya: if you think this bill is a good idea, read this (new window). (a first-hand account of the youngest inmate at guantanmo)

Sometimes they showed you the ugly face: torturing, torturing without asking questions. Sometimes I said, 'Yes, whatever you ask, I'll say yes,' because I just wanted torture to stop. But the next day, I said: 'No, I said yes yesterday because of torture.' My first or second interrogator said to me: 'Mohammed, I know you're innocent but I'm doing my job. I have children to feed. I don't want to lose my job.'

And we all know inmates would never lie. Why would they?

Codenamechaz: Uh...He dropped his veto threat because they removed the thing about detaining citizens. It now just only talks about detaining terrorists.

You're trolling, right?

If not, maybe you had better reread S1301 and S1302 about waivers.

And for anyone looking to make this about D v R - it's not. Look at the voting on the NDAA and check out the count. Bunch of traitors.

Alright FFS, I'm so goddamned tired of this...

Yes, this looks bad. It MIGHT even be MAYBE used badly one day. OR NOT. But I am sick and farking tired of whiny crybaby pansies tearing their clothing and gnashing their teeth about how we're all going into Creedy's black bags.

Jesus Christ you guys, grow a goddamned backbone and try to argue an issue on merit. If you have a problem with detainment policy, then talk about it, but the sensationalist crowing has got to stop.

The question is, when does a country become not worth the effort to save? Muslims discriminated against, unchecked detention and torture legalized, spying on their own citizenry, by a government that had legalized corruption at every level over a populace with less and less to lose...

There will be blood, or there will be mass emigration. The question each of us faces is which?

Cat Food Sandwiches: And we all know inmates would never lie. Why would they?

Wow, I hope you never have to serve on a jury.

FFS, he was going to veto it because it forced federal jurisdiction in all cases. From the workload standpoint, they only want to "disappear" some people while leaving the rest up to the local cops. He never came out against the ability to detain anyone.

KiplingKat872: The question is, when does a country become not worth the effort to save? Muslims discriminated against, unchecked detention and torture legalized, spying on their own citizenry, by a government that had legalized corruption at every level over a populace with less and less to lose...

There will be blood, or there will be mass emigration. The question each of us faces is which?

I'm thing Norway.

LasersHurt: It MIGHT even be MAYBE used badly one day.

It's already being used badly. This is simply an extension of the detainment policies used at Guantanamo, and a loosening of the 9/11 AUMF's definition of terrorist to include anyone groups the government doesn't like. That we're doing anything with those two other than eliminating them is reason enough to get pissed.

Under its current language, it could be used to justify indefinite detainment of drug dealers, people who run torrent sites, or people who contribute to Wikileaks. You know, kind of like how the Patriot Act's primary use was the war on drugs, rather than catching supervillans like it was sold.

Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles...

Haha. In other news, human rights groups believed that Obama had principles.

Genevieve Marie: You think Thomas, Scalia, Alito, or Roberts can be trusted to do it?

I think they defer to Jack Bauer on such issues.

Cat Food Sandwiches: zusya: if you think this bill is a good idea, read this (new window). (a first-hand account of the youngest inmate at guantanmo)

Sometimes they showed you the ugly face: torturing, torturing without asking questions. Sometimes I said, 'Yes, whatever you ask, I'll say yes,' because I just wanted torture to stop. But the next day, I said: 'No, I said yes yesterday because of torture.' My first or second interrogator said to me: 'Mohammed, I know you're innocent but I'm doing my job. I have children to feed. I don't want to lose my job.'

And we all know inmates would never lie. Why would they?

from the same article: When he was still in N'Djamena, talking to me, I asked the US Embassy if they kept tabs on him. Official reply: 'We asked the Chadian government to treat him according to international human rights standards.' But a US diplomat told me in confidence that he was the object of a 'classified agreement between the governments of the US and Chad'. The US asked Chad not to let him leave the country, and to inform them if he ever did. 'Twenty-five per cent of the detainees released from Guantánamo have contacted or re-contacted Islamist networks,' the diplomat said.

1 out 4 ain't bad, amirite?

LasersHurt: If you have a problem with detainment policy,

I think they are.

The fact is this does away with Habeus Corpus, allowing the government to whisk you away for indefinite detainment with out bring charges against you or being tried in open court.

Installing in the U.S. government one of the main abuses we rebelled against the British for.

I really don't know what else there is to discuss. This fakring suck, is wildly dangerous, and is a sign of exactly how little control we have left. American civil rights have been made into a farking joke.

"They fought for your freedoms" in Iraq so our own government could take them away.

If you don't think this is horrendous, you need to pull your head from your backside.

LasersHurt: but the sensationalist crowing has got to stop.

The provisions provided by the Patriot Act MIGHT even be MAYBE used badly one d- oh, wait, they already have. Several times.

If you give an inch of power to any entity, be it government or corporate, they will find a way to squeeze a mile out of it.

Genevieve Marie: I'm well aware of that, but from what I recall from a brief reading about this (and I haven't been following this too closely, so if I'm wrong, someone please correct me) is that while that's been practice, it hasn't been codified into law before. It's just been generally accepted practice.

This allows it to continue pretty much indefinitely.

Am I wrong? Like I said, this is an issue I haven't been following as closely as I should have.

You're pretty much spot on, the Bush administration interpreted the 9/11 AUMF to allow indefinite detention similar to this bill, but this is the first time it's really been codified into law.

A big change with this law, however, is granting military jurisdiction in locations where civilian agencies already have jurisdiction. The FBI isn't going to arrest some asshole in Pakistan, but now the military can arrest some asshole in Cleveland.