National Defense Authorization Act

[Reddy]

NY Times

 

Civil liberties groups still object to the revised bill. But other critics of earlier versions — notably, Representative Adam Smith of Washington State, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee — praised the changes and urged that the bill be passed. On Wednesday, the House approved the bill, 283 to 136; it goes to the Senate.

 

The administration and Congress have been wrestling for months over proposed rules and limits for handling terrorism cases.

 

The bill that emerged from the conference committee on Tuesday dropped a section from the House version that would have banned using civilian courts to prosecute Qaeda suspects. It also dropped a House-written provision enacting a new authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda and its allies.

 

But the bill includes a narrower provision, drafted by the Senate, authorizing the government to detain, without trial, suspected members of Al Qaeda or its allies — or those who “substantially supported” them — bolstering the authorization it enacted a decade ago against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Another section would require officials to hold noncitizens suspected of being Qaeda operatives in military custody. The administration had focused its objections on that section, but the panel expanded the executive branch’s ability to make exceptions.

 

It also added language declaring that the new law would not restrict the existing authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in terrorism matters. Still, the bureau’s director, Robert S. Mueller III, testified on Wednesday that he remained concerned that it would introduce “uncertainty” about what should happen at the time of an arrest.

 

Another provision would require the attorney general to consult with military and intelligence agencies before charging a terrorism suspect in civilian court.

 

The section in bold is pretty terrifying, as it does NOT specify non-citizens - thus American citizens even suspected of supporting a "terrorist" organization will be able to be detained without trial. So if my brother let his computer be used to help Julian Assange, will he be detained? Slippery, slippery slope we're getting ourselves into.

[StrangeSox]

This bill is horrible, but they made it slightly-less-horrible-enough to avoid Obummer's veto.

[Reddy]

This bill is horrible, but they made it slightly-less-horrible-enough to avoid Obummer's veto.

but just think what happens if a GOP president takes office.

[VictoryMC98]

This bill pretty much craps on that old law things.... What its' called... OOO YEAH the US Constitution, Congrats both parties!

[StrangeSox]

but just think what happens if a GOP president takes office.

 

Probably nothing different become Obama hasn't changed much if anything on this front? His original reason for vetoing it wasn't that it gave the Executive far too much power, but that it constrained it.

[VictoryMC98]

NY Times

 

 

 

The section in bold is pretty terrifying, as it does NOT specify non-citizens - thus American citizens even suspected of supporting a "terrorist" organization will be able to be detained without trial. So if my brother let his computer be used to help Julian Assange, will he be detained? Slippery, slippery slope we're getting ourselves into.

 

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin

[Reddy]

Benjamin Franklin

totes

[Balta1701]

Hmmmm...the fact that we could use this to detain the CEO and probably many employees of JP Morgan Chase makes me suddenly reconsider my opposition.

[VictoryMC98]

Hmmmm...the fact that we could use this to detain the CEO and probably many employees of JP Morgan Chase makes me suddenly reconsider my opposition.

 

Jaime, isn't going anywhere... He has bought his freedom, in buying members of Congress.

[mr_genius]

but just think what happens if a GOP president takes office.

 

the exact same thing

[Reddy]

the exact same thing

haha i know. i was mostly kidding.

[Balta1701]

the exact same thing

 

 

haha i know. i was mostly kidding.

Eventually the rules will get so weak that some President (and I won't name a party) will decide to use the rules in some way to weaken opposition at home.

 

We can call this the "Nixon Rule" if we want.

[Reddy]

Eventually the rules will get so weak that some President (and I won't name a party) will decide to use the rules in some way to weaken opposition at home.

 

We can call this the "Nixon Rule" if we want.

so here's the part where I figure this law HAS to be challenged and will eventually get to the Supreme Court. If it does - what happens then?

 

because interestingly enough, the courts decided not to hear the case on the original act in 2001 with all the wiretapping of citizens phones without warrants etc. Any reason to believe they'd act differently towards a bill that expands those powers? I mean, the right to detain indefinitely an american citizen seems insane to me, but then again so does legal wiretapping... at what point is it too much?