• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Defense Bill that would imprison US Citizens without trial is likely to be passed

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
http://news.yahoo.com/house-senate-agree-sweeping-defense-bill-065450185.html

Congress is pressing ahead with a massive $662 billion defense bill that requires military custody for terrorism suspects linked to al-Qaida, including those captured within the U.S., with lawmakers hoping their last-minute revisions will mollify President Barack Obama and eliminate a veto threat.

Leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees announced late Monday that they had reached agreement on the policy-setting legislation that had gotten caught up in an escalating fight on whether to treat suspected terrorists as prisoners of war or criminals in the civilian justice system.

Responding to personal appeals from Obama and his national security team, the lawmakers added language on national security waivers and other changes that they hoped would ensure administration support for the overall bill.

"I assured the president that we were working on additional assurances, that the concerns were not accurate," Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., who spoke to Obama last week, told reporters at a news conference. "That we'd do everything we could to make sure they were allayed, and met."

White House officials said Tuesday they were reviewing the bill. It was unclear whether they would hold firm on the veto threat.

Overall, the bill would authorize $662 billion for military personnel, weapons systems, national security programs in the Energy Department, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1. Reflecting a period of austerity and a winding down of decade-old conflicts, the bill is $27 billion less than Obama requested and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon for fiscal 2011.

The legislation would impose tough new sanctions on Iran, targeting foreign financial institutions that do business with the Central Bank in Tehran. Levin said the negotiators made some changes to address concerns of the Treasury Department, but he said the legislation is "96 percent" of what the Senate had unanimously backed.

One of the measure's chief sponsors welcomed the results. "Moving forward, the Congress will need to be more vigilant than ever before in holding the administration's feet to the fire to collapse the Central Bank of Iran and force international financial institutions to choose between doing business in the U.S. and doing business in Iran," said Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill.

Reflecting growing public weariness with more than a decade of war in Afghanistan, the bill requires the president to develop options to accelerate the ability of the Afghanistan National Security Forces to take responsibility for the country's protection, with benchmarks on progress.

The lawmakers said they hoped the House and Senate could vote on the final bill by Thursday and send it to the president.

The issue of how to handle captured terrorist suspects has divided Obama's senior national security officials and Congress, as well as Democrats and Republicans.

The administration insists that military, law enforcement and intelligence officials need flexibility in prosecuting the war on terror. Obama points to his administration's successes in eliminating Osama bin Laden and radical Islamic cleric Anwar 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.

The bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States, with an exemption for U.S. citizens.

Responding to appeals from Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller, lawmakers added a provision that says nothing in the bill will affect "existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the FBI or any other domestic law enforcement agency" with regard to a captured suspect, "regardless of whether such ... person is held in military custody."

The bill also says the president can waive the provision based on national security. Originally that authority rested with the defense secretary.

House and Senate negotiators dropped several of the provisions in the House bill that also had drawn a veto threat, including the requirement of military tribunals for all cases.

"We took significant steps to address the administration's concerns," Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the top Democrat on the House panel, told reporters.

The legislation would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. The lawmakers made no changes to that language.

Civil rights groups still pressed for a presidential veto.

"The sponsors of the bill monkeyed around with a few minor details, but all of the core dangers remain — the bill authorizes the president to order the military to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others found far from any battlefield, even in the United States itself. The bill strikes at the very heart of American values," Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. "Based on suspicion alone, no place and no person are off-limits to military detention without charge or trial."

The bill would go after foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank by barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.

The petroleum penalties would only apply if the president, in six months, determines there is a sufficient alternative supply and if the country with jurisdiction over the financial institution has not significantly reduced its purchases of Iranian oil. It also allows the president to waive the penalties based on national security.

In a reflection of the uneasy relationship between the United States and Pakistan, the bill would freeze some $700 million in assistance until Pakistan comes up with a strategy to deal with improvised explosive devices.

What a fucking joke.

The Pakistan thing is laughable as well. The $700 million is only being withheld on one caveat.
 
I'm not from America but shouldn't people be chucking a fucking fit at this? It's like everything that goes against what your country stands for.
 
What do they mean by 662 billion dollar defense bill? Is that what it will cost...? Or what it will save...? Or... I donno.

EDIT Never mind re-read the article. Hopefully it doesn't pass.
 
I'm not from America but shouldn't people be chucking a fucking fit at this? It's like everything that goes against what your country stands for.

Not while there are gays in the military and liburuls are destroying the country with their luburul agendas, no.
 
Look for Pakistan to start taxing NATO trucks.

You think that supply route is free?

Also, way to shit on the constitution.
 
I'm not from America but shouldn't people be chucking a fucking fit at this? It's like everything that goes against what your country stands for.

I'm not being facetious when I say this but I'm really not sure what our country really stands for. I know what we pretend to stand for but obviously that isn't it.
 
Force every congressman to read Zeitoun.

Then tell them to stuff the bill up their ass.

And then tar and feather them if they persist. :|

Seriously, this isn't okay. Obama better veto the shit out of it.

As far as I've heard, the military really doesn't even want this responsibility.
 
I'll repeat my prediction: Obama will sign it but with a signing statement condemning the provisions relating to indefinite detention. He will probably speak about how "reluctant" he is to do it, "keeping america safe is something that is too important and will not be compromised" etc etc etc. Same as the FISA bill basically. Oppose it to the end, then flip.
 
Why did you put this in the thread title:

"Defense Bill that would imprison US Citizens without trial is likely to be passed"

When you bolded this in the article:



?

do you carry your citizenship papers on you?
 
Oh well, not that I support it but it makes sense that if you've done something before and plan on doing it again that you should at least pass a bill allowing you to do so at some point.

I'm rather disappointed the discussion has been over whether this bill passes or not that mentions these things as opposed to us actually doing them but whatever.
 
America has become too much of an elite's empire clearly. It's completely lost sight of the founders' intentions. It's sad but expected of really any great civilization given enough time.

This is the kind of shit our founders would approve of a complete coup d'etat by the people for but if that kind of citizen takeover tried to occur the government honestly would have no remorse over locking up and killing thousands of people until we shut the fuck up and retreated to our homes. The rebels would just be labeled insurgents and terrorists and be slaughtered much like what is happening in Syria right now.

In fact, this is probably passing just in time to begin to prepare for future rebellions(kind of like how the police have been completely militarized over the past ten years).
 
I wonder how many of the 'Obama better veto it' crowd are the same who supported this tough new Conservative congress, and condemned Obama as a leftist liberal blah blah blah.

You know, if he had stronger leftist roots, there's no way he would support it. But he's had to play so much to the Right, just to do his job, that now people are in doubt.
 
I wonder how many of the 'Obama better veto it' crowd are the same who supported this tough new Conservative congress, and condemned Obama as a leftist liberal blah blah blah.

You know, if he had stronger leftist roots, there's no way he would support it. But he's had to play so much to the Right, just to do his job, that now people are in doubt.

This isn't even a left-right issue. People on either side could easily be against this due to it being against the US constitution and a clear violation of Human Rights.
 
What the hell is going on over there?
KuGsj.gif

You guys should move to Yurop, it's great out here. Economy collapsing and all.
 
I wonder how many of the 'Obama better veto it' crowd are the same who supported this tough new Conservative congress, and condemned Obama as a leftist liberal blah blah blah.

You know, if he had stronger leftist roots, there's no way he would support it. But he's had to play so much to the Right, just to do his job, that now people are in doubt.

Clearly it's not Obama's fault he's been basically the same as Bush on civil liberties.
 
Clearly it's not Obama's fault he's been basically the same as Bush on civil liberties.

I'm not surprised to hear you say that, I even deleted my Gaborn related comment from my previous post. :P

This isn't even a left-right issue. People on either side could easily be against this due to it being against the US constitution and a clear violation of Human Rights.

But the fact that this has overwhelming Conservative support, and only a facade of bipartisan support on the Democratic, likely due to horse trading, probably doesn't mean much, right? It's very much a left vs right issue.
 
Obama will sign this with everything intact. He might have some sweet rhetoric about why we need this if people ask too many questions, but he'll sign it. It's on the agenda.
 
I wonder how many of the 'Obama better veto it' crowd are the same who supported this tough new Conservative congress, and condemned Obama as a leftist liberal blah blah blah.

You know, if he had stronger leftist roots, there's no way he would support it. But he's had to play so much to the Right, just to do his job, that now people are in doubt.

No, he bends over for the Republicans because he wants to get reelected and is afraid to actually do his job.
 
No, he bends over for the Republicans because he wants to get reelected and is afraid to actually do his job.
"He's their President too." His job is the be the Executive, not to be a Democratic President, or even a Republican one. We don't like the way he's doing his job, but he's definitely doing it. The problem is he has to do it in the framework they've set up for him. Or declare war.
 
I'm not surprised to hear you say that, I even deleted my Gaborn related comment from my previous post. :P

But the fact that this has overwhelming Conservative support, and only a facade of bipartisan support on the Democratic, likely due to horse trading, probably doesn't mean much, right? It's very much a left vs right issue.

This means nothing nowadays, conservatives support whatever they are told to support, personal beliefs be damned.

It is a fact that this bill is against the constitution, and all we need is a campaign informing people of this. Conservatives cannot win against the constitution they love to band around so much.
 
I realize that, but you would think that if the entire country was unanimous on their position on the bill, someone would take note and realize that this is wrong.


You would think that, in a world where the representative doesn't see the American citizen as their worst enemy at all times except election years. The public is an ignorant, uninformed force that needs to be controlled and directed to the "right" decisions. If they're against the government policy, it's only because they don't know any better.

This means nothing nowadays, conservatives support whatever they are told to support, personal beliefs be damned.

It is a fact that this bill is against the constitution, and all we need is a campaign informing people of this. Conservatives cannot win against the constitution they love to band around so much.

I agree except on that last part. The Conservatives can indeed defeat the Constitution. If it gets done, it would be them that did it. And God help us after that, because Civil War, Too.
 
"He's their President too." His job is the be the Executive, not to be a Democratic President, or even a Republican one. We don't like the way he's doing his job, but he's definitely doing it. The problem is he has to do it in the framework they've set up for him. Or declare war.

He was elected as a democrat on certain positions and beliefs about his presidency. He almost certainly should be running as a democratic president and not a republican one.

If not, what's the point in a democracy? You vote for the president you want based on his personal beliefs and his stances on certain issues in the hope that he will, when in office, adhere to those beliefs.

That's idealistic I know, but still.
 
It bothers me that the only reason Obama is considering vetoing this isn't the detainment of US Citizens indefinitely, but rather that the Executive branch would lose some power in deciding on how to detain them. Thanks, Obama.
 
I'm not from America but shouldn't people be chucking a fucking fit at this? It's like everything that goes against what your country stands for.

Americans are a bunch of stupid, apathetic people. By the time we get pissed off enough to do something it will be far too late. I'm leaving this cesspool.
 
It bothers me that the only reason Obama is considering vetoing this isn't the detainment of US Citizens indefinitely, but rather that the Executive branch would lose some power in deciding on how to detain them. Thanks, Obama.

That's what they have said, whether or not it is true in a time when he is pandering for votes is another matter.

Also, do you watch the daily show? ;)
 
This means nothing nowadays, conservatives support whatever they are told to support, personal beliefs be damned.

It is a fact that this bill is against the constitution, and all we need is a campaign informing people of this. Conservatives cannot win against the constitution they love to band around so much.

So was the PATRIOT Act but Dems and Reps alike seemed not to care for the most part. Also, FISA needs to die and the FISA court along with it.

MilkyJay - there is no line item veto. It's either the whole thing gets into law by the President's signature or he vetoes the whole bill.
 
I wonder how many of the 'Obama better veto it' crowd are the same who supported this tough new Conservative congress, and condemned Obama as a leftist liberal blah blah blah.

You know, if he had stronger leftist roots, there's no way he would support it. But he's had to play so much to the Right, just to do his job, that now people are in doubt.

What? I don't even understand what you are saying. You are saying the opposite of reality.
 
So if the President signs this, and it seems very likely, what will it take to get rid of it? Is there no turning back?

Court challenge striking down the provision as unconstitutional.

What would be interesting to see from a legal perspective is if obama vetoed it, congress overrides the veto, and then the executive branch challenges it in court.
 
He was elected as a democrat on certain positions and beliefs about his presidency. He almost certainly should be running as a democratic president and not a republican one.

If not, what's the point in a democracy? You vote for the president you want based on his personal beliefs and his stances on certain issues in the hope that he will, when in office, adhere to those beliefs.

That's idealistic I know, but still.

It's idealistic, and I supported him for his Democratic beliefs, but no, it isn't mandated that he be a "Democratic" anything. And that's part of the problem with partisan politics. He had a public mandate to do things that the Democratic platform supported, but not to be a "Democratic" President. He has a Constitutional mandate to be the executive in office for all of America. And he should have listened to the people who voted him in, meaning he would have accomplished things on the Democratic docket as well as some things from the Republican one. Unfortunately in the way that business is done, he immediately started getting political, and weighing one influence against the other. And ended up caught in the political web of Washington.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom