Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojkt
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) recently spoke in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act and its provision that allows for indefinite detention of American citizens that are deemed to be terrorist. If you have to ask what classifies you as a terrorist, that sounds like terrorist talk to me. Graham’s justification is that the “homeland” is a battlefield.
I didn’t realize that I live in a battlefield. If that’s the case, then I want to mount a belt feed machine gun on my front porch. And a want an M4.
Anyway, here’s Graham: “It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,” Graham said. “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”
So all it takes to be detained without access to counsel is for the government to deem you a terrorist. They don’t have to prove anything. And Graham, and apparently quite a few, see this as a positive. So maybe I won’t “opt out” of the scan the next time I’m at the airport, because clearly only terrorists have something to hide or a reason to object. The Christian Science Monitor has more.
And don’t let Obama supporters tell you he’s on the right side of this issue. His veto threat is over an executive power issue, not a civil liberties one. He wants to determine the who, what, when, where and why of the detainment without congressional input. That the detainment will occur is not at issue.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
They told me if I voted for McCain/Palin, Americans would be held indefinitely and without access to legal representation… and they were right!
LikeLike
"He wants to determine the who, what, when, where and why of the detainment without congressional input."and also whether they merit detention at all or just summary execution.
LikeLike
They may be conspiracy nuts, but the stuff the talk about on No Agenda seems to have a way of coming true.
LikeLike
This was a mistaken interpretation. American citizens are excluded by specific language. That is why Obama is opposed. He doesn't want that restriction which would have prevented the targeting of the mullah in Yemen. The ACLU got this one wrong.
LikeLike
Here's the area where the debate occurs:"Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1013 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens."That's the ACLU interpretation, but others say the exact opposite. It IS a bad piece of legislation, no doubt, if for no other reason than leading legislators can't agree on what it says.
LikeLike
"American citizens are excluded by specific language. That is why Obama is opposed."No, they aren't. "UPDATE: Just to underscore what is — and is not — motivating the Obama administration’s objections to this bill, Sen. Levin has disclosed, as Dave Kopel documents, that “it was the Obama administration which told Congress to remove the language in the original bill which exempted American citizens and lawful residents from the detention power,” on the ground it would unduly restrict the decision-making of Executive Branch officials. In other words, Obama officials wanted the flexibility to militarily detain even U.S. citizens if they were so inclined, and are angry that this bill purports to limit their actions.That, manifestly, is what is driving their objections here: not a defense of due process, but a demand that Congress not interfere with their war. As John Yoo put it back on September 25, 2001, in a secret memo insisting on Congressional powerlessness: “These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.” The Obama administration and their Senate defenders have repeatedly made clear that their real objection to this bill is that they want Executive Branch officials — in the DOJ, CIA and Pentagon — to make these decisions, not Congress, and there is no reason to disbelieve them. UPDATE II: Any doubt about whether this bill permits the military detention of U.S. citizens was dispelled entirely today when an amendment offered by Dianne Feinstein — to confine military detention to those apprehended “abroad,” i.e., off U.S. soil — failed by a vote of 45-55. Only three Republicans voted in favor of Feinstein’s amendment (Paul, Kirk and Lee), while 10 Senate Democrats voted against it (Levin, Stabenow, Casey, Pryor, Ben Nelson, Manchin, McCaskill, Begich and Lieberman). Remember: the GOP — all of whom except 3 voted today to empower the President to militarily detain citizens without charges — distrusts federal power and are strong believes in restrained government. Meanwhile, even The American Spectator has a more developed appreciation of due process than these Senate Democrats and the White House."Congress endorsing military detention, a new AUMF
LikeLike
Well said, NoVa.BB
LikeLike
john:It IS a bad piece of legislation, no doubt, if for no other reason than leading legislators can't agree on what it says.On that standard the constitution is a bad piece of legislation.
LikeLike
This is sort of ironic considering I, and probably millions of other Americans, have never heard of this oversight committee. Apparently, a few people worried about civil liberties erosion after 9/11 and set up a research service to track and analyze legislation and executive action but its never been staffed, lol.Okay, okay, I know we don't need any more federal regulations or anything but it does sound a little prescient now.In a report that was newly updated this month, the Congressional Research Service traced the origins of the Board from a recommendation by the 9/11 Commission through its initial establishment as a White House agency to its reconstitution as an independent agency chartered by statute in 2007.The Board was assigned two overriding missions: It was supposed to “analyze and review actions the executive branch takes to protect the Nation from terrorism, ensuring that the need for such actions is balanced with the need to protect privacy and civil liberties”; and to “ensure that liberty concerns are appropriately considered in the development and implementation of laws, regulations, and policies related to efforts to protect the Nation against terrorism.”So had the Board been functional, it might have been a valuable participant in current deliberations over military detention authority, for example. It might also have conducted investigative oversight into any number of other counterterrorism policies, as mandated by law. But for all practical purposes, there is no Board.
LikeLike
lms — i'd never heard of that board either. or the site that you linked to. Have to add that to the rotation.
LikeLike
Thanks for the story, NoVAH.I forgot that commission, LMS.
LikeLike
I think it's interesting NoVA that at least some legislators anticipated the slippage we're experiencing now. I read a headline this morning that I haven't tracked down yet that someone who video taped cops received a 75 year sentence….yikes if true. I love following links to little know sites, they're less beltway driven.
LikeLike
Thanx, jnc, too.
LikeLike
Scott: On that standard the constitution is a bad piece of legislation.Do we consider the constitution a piece of legislation? Given though, I realize it's crafting was in many ways similar, but I've always thought of it as foundational–as constitutional, if you will. Legislation strikes me as being (hopefully) more specific, although of course it requires interpretation, as well.
LikeLike
jnc4p: Remember: the GOP — all of whom except 3 voted today to empower the President to militarily detain citizens without charges — distrusts federal power and are strong believes in restrained government. This simply isn't true. It may occasionally appear true in campaign rhetoric, but politicians rarely govern consistently with their espoused rhetoric (where doing so would in some way limit their power). Whats more, the conservative punditry largely gives them a pass on these inconsistencies, so they don't have to worry about it. The GOP is by and large a Big Government party that embraces a powerful unitary executive (except when it's convenient to object to one in campaigns and on Sunday shows), just as the Democrats clearly embrace a powerful unitary executive when a Democrat is in the Whitehouse, and are more than willing to support (or at least look the other way) when the government pursues an expensive, militaristic, interventionist foreign policy. As far as government need trumping civil liberties? Please.For the most part, both parties are in collusion where it matters. We should just consider them the right and left sides of the Governmentist party. They make a big show of fighting about nonsense on the margins (budget dust, as NoVA might say) so that the underpinnings of money and power remain untouched and continue to grow. Especially as it concerns their own ongoing power.If there is any question about one party or the other being for Big Government, just look at the amount of government spending and government regulation that occurs under elected Republicans, even when they control every branch of government. When did Medicare Part D happen? When did the Patriot Act happen? When did the last renewal of the Patriot Act happen? When was the last president to issue fewer executive orders than the previous? Etc.
LikeLike
Kevin:Do we consider the constitution a piece of legislation?Sure, why not? There may be some technical difference in a strictly legal sense, but generically speaking "piece of legislation" simply means "a law or laws". The constitution is the law, specifically the law which governs (or is supposed to govern) the government.
LikeLike
kevin:This simply isn't true.I think that was his point.
LikeLike
"kevin:This simply isn't true.I think that was his point. "The quote is from Glenn Greenwald. I put it up as it had specific information about the status of some amendments on the whole issue of "Does the AUMF apply to American citizens".
LikeLike
"someone who video taped cops received a 75 year sentence….yikes if true"honestly — how does anyone involved think that's okay or that it advances the cause of justice? Prosecutor, judge, jury, etc. Thank you for your service, we can all rest easy that this madman and his camera is locked up for life. please.
LikeLike