Lost Thought 00: the legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention.

But indefinite detention comes with a free frogurt.

Dammit; why'd this repeat thread get greenlit when the Greenwald one didn't; it had like 25 comments.

Language of the bill was changed to exempt US citizens before being signed

Yes, the language was changed from:
any citizen suspected of being a terrorist will not get a trial and must be indefinitely imprisoned

to:
any citizen suspected of being a terrorist will not get a trial and could be indefinitely imprisoned if the president decideds that's what's needed.

Relevant text FTA, for illiterates like Subby:

Unnerving many conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, the legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. House Republican leaders had to tamp down a small revolt among some rank-and-file who sought to delay a vote on the bill.

Some of the Republicans were concerned that the "president would use the military to round up American citizens," said Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., a member of the Armed Services panel.

The escalating fight over whether to treat suspects as prisoners of war or criminals has divided Democrats and Republicans, the Pentagon and Congress.

The administration insists that the military, law enforcement and intelligence officials need flexibility in the campaign against terrorism. Obama points to his administration's successes in killing bin Laden and al-Awlaki. Republicans counter that their efforts are necessary to respond to an evolving, post-Sept. 11 threat, and that Obama has failed to produce a consistent policy on handling terror suspects.

In a reflection of the uncertainty, House members offered differing interpretations of the military custody and indefinite detention provisions and what would happen if the bill became law.

"The provisions do not extend new authority to detain U.S. citizens," House Armed Services Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., said during debate.

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the bill would turn "the military into a domestic police force."

Civil rights groups were outraged by the legislation, and the White House's decision to drop the veto threat.

Won't somebody please think about us Canadians?!

Did the language of the Bill of Rights also get changed to alter all references of "persons" or "people" to "US citizens"?

Okay, now I'm outraged.

/seriously

Republicans counter that their efforts are necessary to respond to an evolving, post-Sept. 11 threat

LOL

What evolution are they referencing?

Taken from the Library of Congress, search for H.R.1540

SEC. 1034. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES.

Congress affirms that--

(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;

(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);

(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--

(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or

(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and

(4) the President's authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

Karac: Language of the bill was changed to exempt US citizens before being signed

Yes, the language was changed from:
any citizen suspected of being a terrorist will not get a trial and must be indefinitely imprisoned

to:
any citizen suspected of being a terrorist will not get a trial and could be indefinitely imprisoned if the president decideds that's what's needed.

Well I feel so much better now.

Wasteland: FTFA:"The provisions do not extend new authority to detain U.S. citizens," House Armed Services Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., said during debate.

So why did someone not specifically request specific language in the bill so that there wouldn't be this "confusion"? It's nice that Buck seems to have the decoder ring, but I doubt he's going to attend every "terrorism arrest" and personally assure everyone involved that the language doesn't permit indefinite detention of US citizens.

I guess the other way you could interpret that is maybe Buck feels that the government already has this authority, so that's why there's no NEW authority to do so.

Anavrinman: Every senator that voted for this should be incarcerated.

Pretty sure the Senate has not voted on this, yet.

Anavrinman: Every senator that voted for this should be incarcerated.

Indefinitely without trial.

The bill would require the military to take custody of suspected terrorists. That's the part that American citizens were exempted from: only the part about the military being forced to take custody of them.

The part about being able to arrest and hold without trial on suspicion of terrorist activities does NOT exempt American citizens. Just that the military would not be forced to take custody of them. American citizens would still enjoy the right to languish in civilian prisons without trial. So there's that.

HotWingConspiracy: Republicans counter that their efforts are necessary to respond to an evolving, post-Sept. 11 threat

LOL

What evolution are they referencing?

The one where it's "evolving" from state actors to organized, expert terrorist groups to a couple of idiots in Florida to peaceful protesters taking possibly the most softly-softly approach to mass action in history. Next it will evolve into anyone who votes.

Karac: Language of the bill was changed to exempt US citizens before being signed

Yes, the language was changed from:
any citizen suspected of being a terrorist will not get a trial and must be indefinitely imprisoned

to:
any citizen suspected of being a terrorist will not get a trial and could be indefinitely imprisoned if the president decideds that's what's needed.

Exactly.

Dropping language into the bill, saying that the feds can't interfere with local investigations, and then giving the president the power to move individual suspects from military to civilian courts is not the same as "exempting US citizens."

IIRC, one provision of the bill exempts, and one does not. The feds always operate under the more expansive, abusive provisions, and the federal courts always back them up.

So...what...we have to have at least one "subby doesn't understand that the WH changes did little/nothing to fix the actual problem" thread per day, then? Link (new window)

Heron: Dammit; why'd this repeat thread get greenlit when the Greenwald one didn't; it had like 25 comments.

Because Greenwald is a liberal furious at Obama, and that doesn't drive the left-vs-right narrative that generates pageclicks. Duh.

imontheinternet: IIRC, one provision of the bill exempts, and one does not.

In the Senate version, it merely exempts citizens and legal aliens from the requirement to be detained by the military, leaving it discretionary. There is no exemption from any other provision, including indefinite detention.

/not that there should be, Constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and citizens equally

BunkoSquad: Some of the Republicans were concerned that the "president would use the military to round up American citizens," said Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., a member of the Armed Services panel.

I trust their concern extends to future Presidents as well - even Republican ones - and not just Obama?

Hahahahaha.

No of course not silly.

Sim Tree: I thought Republicans didn't believe in were immune to the effects of evolution.

FTFY

In the words of Jose Padilla "Wait...they couldnt do this before? WTF"

Mercutio74: So why did someone not specifically request specific language in the bill so that there wouldn't be this "confusion"?

Because he's lying his ass off. There's nothing exempting citizens from indefinite detention in the house bill that I can find, only language exempting citizens from being detainees at Guantanamo (for some farking reason).

sprawl15: Mercutio74: So why did someone not specifically request specific language in the bill so that there wouldn't be this "confusion"?

Because he's lying his ass off. There's nothing exempting citizens from indefinite detention in the house bill that I can find, only language exempting citizens from being detainees at Guantanamo (for some farking reason).

I take that back. It doesn't even exempt citizens from being detainees at Guantanamo, it exempts citizens from being included in protections/restrictions listed for dealing with detainees at Guantanamo:

SEC. 1031. DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO.

In this subtitle, the term `individual detained at Guantanamo' means any individual who is located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or after March 7, 2011, who--

(1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and

(2) is in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense .

SEC. 1035. REQUIREMENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY PROTOCOLS GOVERNING DETAINEE COMMUNICATIONS.

(a) Limitation- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act , the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate a national security protocol applicable to each individual detained at Guantanamo. Each such national security protocol shall include a description of each of the following:

(1) The authority of an individual covered by the protocol to have access to military or civilian legal representation, or both, and any limitations on such access.

(2) Any items that are considered contraband for such an individual.

[etc]

Our country has gone insane before (Civil War, Japanese-American detentions, McCarthyism) and it is my sole hope that in ten years we'll see the error of our ways and come back from this. We've done it before, we can do it again.

/Constitution? What Constitution?

"There is an exemption for U.S. citizens."

"also says the president can waive the provision"

"The statute lacks clarity"

You know what is clear?

IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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.

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 defence


There, now stop farking around.

sprawl15: imontheinternet: IIRC, one provision of the bill exempts, and one does not.

In the Senate version, it merely exempts citizens and legal aliens from the requirement to be detained by the military, leaving it discretionary. There is no exemption from any other provision, including indefinite detention.

/not that there should be, Constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and citizens equally

The one thing this bill has proven definitively is that the vast majority of Washington, Republican and Democrat, have absolutely no respect for the rule of law.

Doc Daneeka: Did the language of the Bill of Rights also get changed to alter all references of "persons" or "people" to "US citizens"?

THIS.

I realize that this is concerning for US citizens. But weren't most people already angry that "suspected terrorists" were being held without trial indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay? Isn't that why a lot of people wanted it shut down in the first place?

This bill has basically shifted the attention away from that and onto "now we can detain US citizens." Now everyone will piss and moan about taking out the part about US citizens, and they'll end up leaving the rest of it intact. Standard negotiation tactic.

We should be fighting "indefinite detention without trial" for EVERYBODY.

WHAR TEABAGGERS, WHAR????

First Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment - 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.

Third Amendment - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment - 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 offence 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.

Sixth Amendment - 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 defence.

Seventh Amendment - In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

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

Ninth Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Someone help me out here. I'm not seeing which of these rights is restricted only to United States citizens. In fact, I don't see the word "citizen" anywhere.

wantedbadass: We should be fighting "indefinite detention without trial" for EVERYBODY.

This. Constitutional rights are self-evident, they are not granted through citizenship.

wantedbadass: But weren't most people already angry that "suspected terrorists" were being held without trial indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay?

Some of us were (including me) but we were told to STFU and sit down you damned hippie and why do you hate America so much, you farking commie terrorist-lover.

sprawl15: This. Constitutional rights are self-evident, they are not granted through citizenship.

But service guarantees citizenship!

sprawl15: wantedbadass: We should be fighting "indefinite detention without trial" for EVERYBODY.

This. Constitutional rights are self-evident, they are not granted through citizenship.

Unfortunately our Constitution had a loop-hole

Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

buck1138: sprawl15: wantedbadass: We should be fighting "indefinite detention without trial" for EVERYBODY.

This. Constitutional rights are self-evident, they are not granted through citizenship.

Unfortunately our Constitution had a loop-hole

Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

And that's fine. Except I don't think 2500 deaths in one attack over ten years ago warrants this kind of response.

buck1138: Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

It's a good thing that we are facing neither a rebellion nor an invasion then.

In fact, I don't think the United States mainland has been subject to a real invasion since the War of 1812.

This change is window dressing.

This stuff doesn't exist in a vacuum, either. Take it as part of a trajectory and include the patriot act(s), executive orders (both Bush and Obama), execution w/o charges/trial, etc. The direction we're going in hasn't changed for a while and I don't expect it to (irrespective of the party voting or in charge). Look for pre-emptive detention (sans habeas corpus) next.

Trendline says our rights are going if not gone. There's really no more to it than that.

Mike Chewbacca: And that's fine. Except I don't think 2500 deaths in one attack over ten years ago warrants this kind of response.

Indeed. Kind of like the provisions in the War Powers Resolution that allows the President to defend the country without needing to ask Congress first.

Mike Chewbacca: wantedbadass: But weren't most people already angry that "suspected terrorists" were being held without trial indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay?

Some of us were (including me) but we were told to STFU and sit down you damned hippie and why do you hate America so much, you farking commie terrorist-lover.

And there are already people saying the same thing about this.

(I also like the people who are now blaming Occupy for this and are screaming for our blood. Apparently, now the Occupy movement is actually astroturf to create an excuse for stuff like this.)

Doc Daneeka: buck1138: Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

It's a good thing that we are facing neither a rebellion nor an invasion then.

In fact, I don't think the United States mainland has been subject to a real invasion since the War of 1812.

What an invasion might look like to some... not me.


/We're under attack
//Not really

Xaneidolon: Look for pre-emptive detention (sans habeas corpus) next.

That's what this bill does. The burden of proof is simply an executive branch determination. They don't need to present that evidence to anyone to authorize detainment.

buck1138: Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

So which is it?

I am reminded of a quote:

"When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic]."
-- August 24, 1855 - Letter to Joshua Speed