It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Those who say we have written into law a new authority to detain American citizens until the end of hostilities are wrong. Neither the Senate bill nor the conference report establishes new authority to detain American citizens--or anybody else.
The issue of indefinite detention arises from the capture of an enemy combatant at war. According to the law of war, an enemy combatant may be held until the end of hostilities. Can an American citizen be held as an enemy combatant? According to the law of war, an enemy combatant may be held until the end of hostilities. But, again, can an American citizen be held as an enemy combatant? I believe that if an American citizen joins a foreign army or a hostile force such as al-Qaida that has declared war and organized a war against us and attacks us, that person can be captured and detained as an enemy combatant under the law of war.
In 2004, the Supreme Court held in the Hamdi case that ``there is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.''
The Court cited with approval its holding in the Quirin case, in which an earlier court held that ``citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of ..... the law of war.''
But despite that view of mine, which I clearly expressed on the Senate floor a couple weeks ago, neither the Senate bill nor the conference report takes a position on this issue. Both the Senate bill and the conference report include the language of the Feinstein amendment, which we drafted together and passed 99 to 1. That amendment leaves this issue to the executive branch and the courts by providing the following:
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.
The more difficult issue for me--and I believe it goes to the heart of the concern of the detention policy--is the kind of war we are in with al-Qaida, and that issue is when does the detention end? In other words, when are the hostilities over? In this kind of nontraditional war, we are not likely to sign a peace treaty or receive a formal surrender or even reach an agreement on a cease-fire.
Under these circumstances, it is appropriate for us to provide greater procedural rights to enemy detainees than we might in a more traditional war. We have done so in this conference report. The conference report, for instance, requires periodic reviews of detainee cases in accordance with an executive order issued earlier this year to determine whether detainees pose a continuing threat or safely can be released. Under the conference report, enemy combatants who will be held in long-term military detention are told, for the first time, they will get a military judge and a military lawyer for their status determination.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
So there you have it: the bill creates no new powers of detention,
it has no effect on any "persons who are captured or arrested in the United States,"
and it affords detainees greater procedural rights than they had before.
Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
Yes i did, and in this days and times, I will not trust any crap that comes out either in writing or speeches out of the mouth of the corrupted crap we call politicians in power.
Does that explain my position to you? or you are just a bit taken by my response to what the sponsor of the bill have to say to cover his crocked arse.
The issue of indefinite detention arises from the capture of an enemy combatant at war. According to the law of war, an enemy combatant may be held until the end of hostilities. Can an American citizen be held as an enemy combatant? According to the law of war, an enemy combatant may be held until the end of hostilities. But, again, can an American citizen be held as an enemy combatant? I believe that if an American citizen joins a foreign army or a hostile force such as al-Qaida that has declared war and organized a war against us and attacks us, that person can be captured and detained as an enemy combatant under the law of war. In 2004, the Supreme Court held in the Hamdi case that ``there is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.''
Originally posted by ArrowsNV
The fact of the matter is whether or not a US CITIZEN is aligned with an enemy nation, or "terrorists" (such a vague term), they are still entitled to their Constitutional rights. One of which is a trial with a jury of their peers to decide whether or not they are actually guilty.
"including any person who has committed a belligerent act"
That could be skewed a lot of different ways. My problem is not with the bill, it is with the vague language used in it.
I mean, if Occupy can be deemed 'Terrorists' in London, how long is it gonna be before it happens here and people start getting thrown in Gitmo for protesting the police state we live in?
Originally posted by brokedown
I, for one have a serious problem with that, and you should as well.
This goes against EVERYTHING our Founders stood for.
In the United States, We the People, have the inalienable RIGHT to Due Process. If a citizen has committed a crime, which treason is a crime, we already have procedures in place to deal with the problem.
This flies in the face as who WE are as a Nation.
Originally posted by brokedown
I, for one have a serious problem with that, and you should as well.
Here is the problem, this bill authorizes the Executive Branch to make the determination if a person is an enemy of the State, i.e. enemy combatant.
In the United States, We the People, have the inalienable RIGHT to Due Process.
Under this bill the Executive Branch can, without any proof, without any evidence, without any Judicial Oversight, detain anyone who it believes is an enemy combatant, indefinitely.
Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
Yes i did, and in this days and times, I will not trust any crap that comes out either in writing or speeches out of the mouth of the corrupted crap we call politicians in power.
Does that explain my position to you? or you are just a bit taken by my response to what the sponsor of the bill have to say to cover his crocked arse.
In criminal cases and lawsuits over $20, yes. But what does that have to do with the National Defense Authorization Act?
You are quote mining. Here is the entire quote: "A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." "Any person who has committed a belligerent act" is limited by "in aid of such enemy forces."
I mean, if Occupy can be deemed 'Terrorists' in London, how long is it gonna be before it happens here and people start getting thrown in Gitmo for protesting the police state we live in?
This bill does not establish or affirm any authority to do so.
It expands the procedural rights of Gitmo detainees
and establishes a new Congressional oversight mechanism to ensure the detention power is not being abused.