I sent an email regarding the NDAA and the detainment of American citizens. In his response Casey claims that the NDAA gives no more power than what
was already passed in 2001. So have at it ATS. Can you rip apart his claims or has the whole NDAA been fear mongering from conspiracy theorists?
Here is the email.
Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I
appreciate hearing from you about this issue.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorizes policy and annual expenditures for the Department of Defense. The House of Representatives
and the Senate recently passed the final version of the 2012 NDAA with broad bipartisan support. It is currently awaiting the President’s signature
before it becomes law.
The Department of Defense is responsible for overseeing the United States Armed Forces and ensuring that our Nation is able to effectively respond to
threats. It is critical that Congress provides the Department of Defense with sufficient funding to protect American lives, defend our Nation and
support our servicemembers and their families. While our overseas military engagements continue, it is particularly important to provide the
resources our servicemembers need to successfully conduct operations and ensure their own safety.
As your United States Senator, I am committed to ensuring the safety and security of all Americans. Since 2001, United States counterterrorism
efforts have helped to ensure our national security. Our brave servicemembers and intelligence personnel work tirelessly to protect our nation
against the threat of terrorism. However, it is essential that the executive branch operate with transparency and ensure that our counterterrorism
efforts do not infringe on the civil liberties of American citizens. We must not sacrifice our fundamental values and ideals in the face of this
The custody and detention provisions in the NDAA are the result of thorough consideration and bipartisan agreement. These provisions, including
Sections 1021 and 1022, will allow the United States to deal effectively with the threat posed by al Qaeda, a terrorist group that has inflicted
devastating harm on our Nation and continues to seek to attack our citizens, our allies, and our interests both here at home and around the world.
Section 1021 of the NDAA does not expand the executive branch’s authority to detain suspected terrorists. This section states explicitly that it is
not intended to limit or expand the authority that Congress granted the President in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The
definition of a “covered person” in this section is “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.” This is the position that has been adopted by the
Obama Administration and upheld in U.S. courts since 2001. In addition, it requires the executive branch to brief Congress regularly on the
individuals and groups to whom this authority is being applied.
It is important to note that Section 1021 does not create any “new” or “unprecedented” presidential power, nor does it create any
“permanent” detention power. The legislation explicitly states that Section 1021 shall not “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
Section 1022 of the NDAA requires that persons who are members of al Qaeda and have participated in planning or carrying out an attack against the
United States or its allies be held in military custody. However, the executive branch can exercise a waiver of this requirement if the President
certifies to Congress that holding a particular suspect in civilian custody will better serve U.S. national security interests. In addition, this
provision applies only to non-US citizens and non-lawful resident aliens who are al Qaeda operatives and who plan or carry out attacks against the
United States. It explicitly does not apply to American citizens and those who reside here lawfully.
Senator Dianne Feinstein of California proposed an amendment which would have limited the requirement of military custody in Section 1022 to suspected
terrorists captured abroad. This proposal was rejected in the Senate by a vote of 55 to 45. I voted against this amendment because the waiver
provision provides flexibility to the executive branch to determine whether a suspected al Qaeda operative captured on U.S. soil should be transferred
to civilian custody.
Senator Mark Udall of Colorado offered an amendment to remove the detention provisions in Section 1021 from the bill altogether. This amendment would
have essentially allowed the executive branch to continue to engage in existing detention practices without codification in law. By codifying the
detention practices already in use, Congress is exercising its critical responsibility to oversee and create a legal framework for executive branch
action. For this reason, I joined a majority of Senators in voting against this amendment.
Senator Feinstein also offered an amendment to explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of American citizens. I voted in favor of this amendment
out of concern that authorizing the government to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens was at odds with fundamental American values. Unfortunately, this
amendment was rejected by a vote of 55 to 45. Finally, Senator Feinstein proposed an amendment to clarify that nothing in the bill “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.” I also voted for this measure, which passed the Senate by a vote of 99 to 1
and was included in the final version of the bill.
On December 15, 2011, Senator Feinstein introduced S. 2003, the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011. This legislation would clarify that an
authorization to use military force, a declaration of war or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a
citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States. S. 2003 would also require Congress to make a “clear statement” about the limitations
on authority to detain U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. This legislation has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, of which I
am not a member. Please be assured that I will examine this legislation closely.
Nothing in the NDAA authorizes the U.S. military to patrol our streets, detain ordinary Americans in their homes or conduct any law enforcement
functions inside the United States. Section 1022 says only that a specific group of persons, narrowly defined as those who are “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” should be subject to military custody, unless the executive branch determines that civilian custody is more appropriate in a particular
case. The NDAA does not address when or where a person may be captured, and does not authorize the military to exercise unprecedented powers on U.S.
In addition, the NDAA will not disrupt ongoing interrogations, intelligence gathering functions and surveillance activities, and it does not require
military commissions in terrorist prosecutions. The administration raised concerns that certain provisions would limit its ability to collect vital
information and limit its prosecutorial options. In response, the Senate Armed Services Committee clarified that no such limitations would be placed
on the President’s authority.
The NDAA absolutely does not authorize torture of detainees, irrespective of citizenship. Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire proposed S. Amdt.
1068 to the NDAA to authorize certain enhanced interrogation techniques. However, the U.S. Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual
punishments,” and we must not tolerate the use of torture under any circumstances. I believe strongly that the United States has a moral obligation
to uphold its commitments under the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners. We must, therefore, hold all executive branch officials
accountable for alleged violations of these commitments. I am pleased that S. Amdt. 1068 was not included the final version of the NDAA that passed
the Senate. Please be assured that I support efforts to prohibit the use of “enhanced interrogation” practices, and that no such practices have
been endorsed in this bill.
The NDAA also does not change the fundamental, constitutional right of habeas corpus review. The writ of habeas corpus is a legal doctrine that
allows individuals to challenge their detention in a court of law. The U.S. Constitution explicitly provides this right to American citizens, and the
U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld its applicability, even with respect to suspected terrorists. Any American citizen or lawful permanent
resident held in U.S. custody will have the right to habeas corpus review. Similarly, the courts have established that persons detained under the
Authorization of the Use of Military Force, including those held at Guantanamo Bay, have the right to such review. Nothing in the NDAA undermines
this critical right.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance
If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, casey.senate.gov...
. I invite you to use this online office as a
comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office, or share with me your thoughts on the issues
that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.
United States Senator