Detainee Policy vs. The Constitution

[Cord Byrd]

A small corner of conservative punditry has been ablaze over the Senate's passage of S. 1867, formally known as the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012’’.  Buried within this 926 page bill covering things such as healthcare benefits for the armed forces and stationing more destroyers at Mayport, are two provisions, sections 1031 and 1032, which have the potential to undermine our Constitutional liberties.  I am concerned that the media coverage of this issue, especially from the likes of Rush, Shawn and Mark has been almost non-existent.

The language of the bill is vague and provides  authority to the president to detain American citizens, living within the United States indefinitely without due process of law.  Furthermore it makes the United States a "battlefield" in the war on terror and authorizes the military, not domestic police forces, to arrest Americans.

In the words of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the law will “for the first time [say] that the homeland is part of the battlefield.”  According to Rep. Justin Amash, who voted against the House version of the bill, this act would “permit the federal government to indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil, without charge or trial, at the discretion of the President.”

The Heritage position paper on this issue which can be read here, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/10/common-sense-princ..., essentially says this is no big deal.  I along with a vocal minority of Republican senators disagree.  The primary statutory authority for the war against terrorists is the September 18, 2001, Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). As the wars wind down and the troops withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan some are concerned that the legal authority to detain "terrorists" will no longer exist and that the current detainees will file habeus petitions seeking release.  Sec. 1031 establishes the legal authority to hold current and future detainees forever.

With all due respect to Heritage, Senator Rubio and the other Republican Senators who voted in support of this bill, I simply do not trust the current occupant of the White House  or any other president with this much power. 

[Ed Oertli]

Today marks the 220th anniversary of the day the Bill of Rights were officially added to the Constitution. Ironically, the U.S. Senate is set to kill the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments of that Bill of Rights later today. Last night, the U.S. House approved the Conference Report version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which includes provisions that would allow the President to throw American citizens in jail and keep them there indefinitely. The Senate is set to vote on this bill around 4 pm eastern today, so I need your immediate help if we are to stop this dangerous legislation. You can find your senators' contact information here.  Please, call them right away and demand they stand up for the Bill of Rights on its 220th anniversary by voting "No" on the NDAA Conference Report.

[Ed Oertli]

You and I both know that freedom is not free.  Its price cannot be measured in dollars - and its defense requires eternal vigilance. On December 1, the U.S. Senate passed S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), by a vote of 93-7. A slightly different NDAA, H.R. 1540, had already passed the U.S. House in May, and it has been reconciled with the Senate version in a closed session of a Joint Conference Committee. The NDAA is passed annually to specify the budget and expenditures for the U.S. Department of Defense, but this year's version would essentially strip American Citizens of due process - protections that used to set us apart from despotic nations.
The Senate version of the NDAA declares the homeland to be part of the battlefield in the "War on Terror."
In simple terms, Sections 1031 and 1032 of S. 1867 allow American citizens to be detained indefinitely - without charges or trial - until the War on Terror is declared over. There has been some recent confusion over what exactly the Senate bill actually stipulates. In fact, when you call your representative and BOTH of your senators, as I'm about to ask you to do, the staff will probably give you one of two canned responses:
1.) "The Feinstein amendment #1456, which passed on Dec. 1 (by a vote of 99-1), says that no provision of Sec. 1031 can be taken to "affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens."
In reality, this was added nearly unanimously at the last minute to appease those of us rightly opposed to these detention provisions.  In the Congressional Record that day, there are arguments from Senators Lindsey Graham and Carl Levin, both of whom supported this amendment, stating they believe the President and Congress already have the authority to detain American Citizens, since the Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled otherwise.  This is not the case, but it explains why the bill's main supporters did not oppose the Feinstein amendment.
2.)  "It already exempts American Citizens.  You should know that Sec. 1032 actually states: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."
Don't fall for their cleverly chosen legislative language. A careful reading of the suspect sections bears out that, while there is no requirement to detain an American citizen, the act thereof is not explicitly prohibited.  By extension, it is actually permitted. As if the above is not bad enough, the power to determine which American citizens will be indefinitely detained without charges or trial will be left to the President alone.I'm certain you would agree that something as important as overturning longstanding American jurisprudence deserves to be the subject of a vigorous debate in a public forum. But, late last week, the House, by an overwhelming majority (406-17), passed a motion that allowed this Joint Committee to meet in secret. Last night, the House and Senate conferees emerged without having changed the offending detainee provisions of the NDAA. And the section numbers (formerly 1031 and 1032) have been changed to 1021 and 1022. Call your representative and senators today at 202-224-3121 to urge them to say NO on the NDAA Conference Report unless Secs. 1021 and 1022 are removed or heavily modified

[Ed Oertli]

Call your Senators and Congress person today--to remove those sections from this bill!!  A final vote on this Tyrannical Bill could be made in the next couple days. They are in the process of merging the Senate and House versions--both of which contain these Anti-Constitutional/Bill of Rights sections. These horrible sections 1031 and 1032 have simply been renamed 1021 and 1022.  See next following blog for Campaign for Liberty article and detail.