It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Three myths about the detention bill (NDAA)

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:36 PM
Three myths about the detention bill

Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.”

Except it's not Obama ``caving in``, Obama WANTED THIS. The NYT is trying to make it look like it's poor little Obama against the big bad republicans. Wrong. Both parties wanted this.

In damage control mode, White-House-allied groups are now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill’s dangers.

Attacking the ACLU... real classy...

Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention

It is true, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) already vests the power of indefinite detention in the President, and post-9/11 deferential courts have largely accepted that view (just as the Bush DOJ argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) allowed them to eavesdrop on Americans without the warrants required by law). That’s why the NDAA can state that nothing is intended to expand the 2001 AUMF while achieving exactly that: because the Executive and judicial interpretation being given to the 20o1 AUMF is already so much broader than its language provides.

But this is the first time this power of indefinite detention is being expressly codified by statute (there’s not a word about detention powers in the 2001 AUMF).

Yeah Bush and Obama already claimed that power. But for the first time since McCarthy, it's written into law.

Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF

Section (1) is basically a re-statement of the 2001 AUMF. But Section (2) is a brand new addition. It allows the President to target not only those who helped perpetrate the 9/11 attacks or those who harbored them, but also: anyone who “substantially supports” such groups and/or “associated forces.” Those are extremely vague terms subject to wild and obvious levels of abuse (see what Law Professor Jonathan Hafetz told me in an interview last week about the dangers of those terms). This is a substantial statutory escalation of the War on Terror and the President’s powers under it

Expend the definitions to ANYONE really.

Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill

This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.

There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide that “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.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad).

But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.

That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody.

The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.

So yeah, it INCLUDES American citizens.

Keep denying whoever still supports Obama... most of Obama supporters are now anti-Obama because of the crap he pulled with this one. So time to join the liberty movement and support Ron Paul, the ONLY ONE who cares about the constitution.
edit on 16-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:41 PM
Nice thread. When I read the title, I expected the "myth" to be that Americans can be imprisoned under this bill, and expected to see that misleading quote that people use to back up that lie. I've heard so many people try to tell me that this bill doesn't apply to Americans, it's crazy. It's structured in such a dishonest, misleading way. Plus it's just one more step in the direction of the tyranny that we've been approaching for long.

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery"
-- Thomas Jefferson

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy"
-- James Madison

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home"
-- James Madison

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin

I could find 20 more Founding Father quotes that are entirely applicable to this situation and practically predict what's going on. They understood these things, but most Americans are more concerned with sports and other pointless things to even think about such a thing.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:51 PM
A couple federal judges have already said its veiled martial law.

Yet the paid shills still try to play their games. Its funny. When a govt hot issue comes up its clear who every shill is here. They dont have clue one how to be a shill.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:52 PM
Why are you still putting faith in servants of this Tyranny? Ron Paul is just another puppet on a string. I would rather elect most of the moderators on this site than ANYONE currently involved in this political madness. It has been my belief ever since the media blackout of Ron Paul started that it is DELIBERATE. They want us to think we are electing the underdog so their reign of terror can continue undeterred.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:34 PM

Originally posted by DogGod
Why are you still putting faith in servants of this Tyranny? Ron Paul is just another puppet on a string. I would rather elect most of the moderators on this site than ANYONE currently involved in this political madness. It has been my belief ever since the media blackout of Ron Paul started that it is DELIBERATE. They want us to think we are electing the underdog so their reign of terror can continue undeterred.

I completely disagree with your statement. Perhaps you need to pull up some old videos of Ron Paul from the 70s and 80s, he speaks the same way then as he does now. It is my belief that the media blackout is deliberate in the fact that they don't want people to see or hear him or his ideas. They go against him because if Ron Paul is elected their reign of terror will no longer continue undeterred. He's not the underdog, he's the front runner hence the lack of coverage at the debates, the hiding of the online poll results, etc.


log in