Prolonged detention?

[Baal Hadad]

Meet the National Defense Authorization Act, 2012.

This bill says that anyone suspected of having "committed a belligerent act" could be detained indefinitely--without charge and without trial. The original wording of it specifically exempted American citizens from this, but according to Senator Carl Levin, that wording was taken out, and it was the current administration who wanted it taken out.

Granted, the new wording doesn't specifically say that American citizens are NOT exempt, but it says nothing either way, only that "any person who has committed a belligerent act" could be held indefinitely. The bill does not define what that means in the new language, if I'm understanding it correctly. It COULD be interpreted to include American citizens, especially if the administration took out the wording that specifically exempted them.

What's more, apparently the fate of this bill could be decided as early as tomorrow.

[Inumo]

Do you have a link to the bill? I'm curious about what it says, exactly. Also, remember, Congress was designed to be slow to prevent impassioned legislature and the like. Considering the ramifications of this bill, I doubt its fate will be entirely decided tomorrow, except perhaps to say "nope not happening."

[justacritic]

I wonder how this will interfere with Habeas corpus or the clause in the bill of rights protecting against unreasonable imprisonment.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

I believe this counts as "reasonable", because it's been voted into law.


However unreasonable it seems to anyone anywhere else in the world.

I wonder what Brazil will do about this, if it gets passed.

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

I believe this counts as "reasonable", because it's been voted into law.

Thing is, courts are the arbiter as to what counts as "reasonable", and while there is some deference to what the legislature comes up with, it's not absolute, especially where "fundamental" (not always clearly defined) rights are at stake.

[Baal Hadad]

Do you have a link to the bill? I'm curious about what it says, exactly. Also, remember, Congress was designed to be slow to prevent impassioned legislature and the like. Considering the ramifications of this bill, I doubt its fate will be entirely decided tomorrow, except perhaps to say "nope not happening."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:h1540:

[Sunblink]

Meet the National Defense Authorization Act, 2012.

This bill says that anyone suspected of having "committed a belligerent act" could be detained indefinitely--without charge and without trial. The original wording of it specifically exempted American citizens from this, but according to Senator Carl Levin, that wording was taken out, and it was the current administration who wanted it taken out.

Granted, the new wording doesn't specifically say that American citizens are NOT exempt, but it says nothing either way, only that "any person who has committed a belligerent act" could be held indefinitely. The bill does not define what that means in the new language, if I'm understanding it correctly. It COULD be interpreted to include American citizens, especially if the administration took out the wording that specifically exempted them.

What's more, apparently the fate of this bill could be decided as early as tomorrow.

Glad someone else mentioned this, it was circling around Tumblr and Wired but it didn't seem to be gaining the same amount of awareness as SOPA was.

Scary stuff.

[joshofspam]

Meet the National Defense Authorization Act, 2012.

This bill says that anyone suspected of having "committed a belligerent act" could be detained indefinitely--without charge and without trial. The original wording of it specifically exempted American citizens from this, but according to Senator Carl Levin, that wording was taken out, and it was the current administration who wanted it taken out.

Granted, the new wording doesn't specifically say that American citizens are NOT exempt, but it says nothing either way, only that "any person who has committed a belligerent act" could be held indefinitely. The bill does not define what that means in the new language, if I'm understanding it correctly. It COULD be interpreted to include American citizens, especially if the administration took out the wording that specifically exempted them.

What's more, apparently the fate of this bill could be decided as early as tomorrow.

Glad someone else mentioned this, it was circling around Tumblr and Wired but it didn't seem to be gaining the same amount of awareness as SOPA was.

Scary stuff.

The scary thing about it is that it almost sounds like something to partially replace Sopa or something to compliment it at the laws worst.

After all, think what they could consider a belligerent act depending on who's judging it or the wrong wording?

It sounds like a way for masses to silence those practicing the freedom of speech and if worded and interpreted wrong, people could lock up people just because they don't like something.

[Sunblink]

The scary thing about it is that it almost sounds like something to partially replace Sopa or something to compliment it at the laws worst.

After all, think what they could consider a belligerent act depending on who's judging it or the wrong wording?

It sounds like a way for masses to silence those practicing the freedom of speech and if worded and interpreted wrong, people could lock up people just because they don't like something.

It sort of came across to me as "hey this'll shut up those Occupy Everything protesters" but that's a different kind of tin foil hat on my part. I'm so disillusioned with Obama it's not even funny.

Not sure how Democrats and Republicans can shit all over the Bill of Rights but w/e this is the American government we're talking about

[Surzsha]

These things aren't very surprising. There's always going to be some scheme from the big bad government to either take more money from the average citizens and/or control every possible means of opinion and action so they can keep everyone else from rising up in opposition.

But we shouldn't really take things out of context, right? The new act is mainly saying that any aggressive and hostile opposition will be taken into custody without notice, so that leaves us good, law-abiding citizens out of the equation, right?

Right...?



I don't know, anymore.

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

This bill says that anyone suspected of having "committed a belligerent act" could be detained indefinitely--without charge and without trial. The original wording of it specifically exempted American citizens from this, but according to Senator Carl Levin, that wording was taken out, and it was the current administration who wanted it taken out.

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.

(emphasis mine)

While I can't say I'm happy with this bill, it's not quite the prelude to the government locking up everyone who is two steps away from voicing dissent. Firstly, note how subsection two defines "committing a belligerent act" in the context of the ongoing fight with Al-Queda and the Taliban. I suspect that something like that is necessary because the current Administration doesn't want to call that a "war", so general military doctrine doesn't apply.

But also take a look at the beginning of the section. It's providing authorization for military arrests. Military officers and enlistees don't have the authority to make arrests during normal situations, only in instances and places where martial law has been invoked. That's the case in a lot of war zones, but as far as I know the last time real martial law has been invoked in the U.S. (I'm not counting the 1961 stuff in Birmingham, which was national guardsmen who are subject to governor's orders instead of federal orders)  was in Hawaii during WW2.

Now, I'm not crazy about what this law does allow; especially in a chaotic skirmish up in the mountainous border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, I can very easily see innocent people being found near a skirmish, hauled away on some suspicion, and simply forgotten about for years. But as for effects in the continental U.S. to clamp down on dissent? No, I don't think so.

[Inumo]

Reading through the section listed above, I'd also like to note this:

(e) Authorities- 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.

Now, granted, I'm not a lawyer, or even completely legal-ese savvy, but it seems to me like this is basically saying, "This applies to everyone that isn't a US citizen, a legal US immigrant that hasn't obtained citizenship, or found in the US." Granted, Corgatha's point about noncoms found near the site of a skirmish being hauled away and forgotten for a while is still wholly possible, but that's not much different from how it was before. If you ever get the chance, look up Habeas Schmabeas from This American Life, which talks a lot about the same issue. Just remember, we are also working with a semi-paranoid government. We don't want another 9/11 to happen, so unfortunately some civil rights are thrown by the wayside in order to try and secure such policies.

I'm glad that we have people looking out for such breaches in civil rights, but I'm also just a bit worried about what might happen if we look for too many.

EDIT: Found something later on that seems to reword Section 1031's definition of Covered Persons, right in the next section in fact.

        (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.

Hope it helps!

[joshofspam]

Actually that does help.

Thanks. I too, hope that if mistakes are made, at least they get fixed. Doesn't really seem as potentially as exploitable as Sopa.

Just hope that it doesn't become a problem of lock up and forget just because they didn't here what they wanted to. Or that people really do get forgotten about after their put away.

[Sunblink]

Actually that does help.

Thanks. I too, hope that if mistakes are made, at least they get fixed. Doesn't really seem as potentially as exploitable as Sopa.

Just hope that it doesn't become a problem of lock up and forget just because they didn't here what they wanted to. Or that people really do get forgotten about after their put away.

That is an enormous relief. Initially I was afraid it'd allow the government to lock up Muslims that had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda/the 99%-ers/any kind of group based on the government's paranoia, but that fixes that problem. I'm still not happy with the bill for the reasons Corgatha outlined.