Court upholds NDAA; stay extended on indefinite detention injunction & My Fight With It

Court extends stop on order blocking indefinite detention law

Court upholds NDAA; stay extended on indefinite detention injunction

I have been tracking this whole NDAA bill since inception. Once it was voted on and a list was published of who voted for it, I looked to see if my state rep had voted in favor of it; indeed he did. So I called and emailed him addressing my concerns with the bill. Here is his response:

February 6, 2012 Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2012. I always appreciate hearing from those that I represent in Congress. Each year, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees consider the NDAA, a comprehensive bill that sets procurement and personnel policy for the Department of Defense (DoD) for the next fiscal year. This includes troop pay and benefits, funding for weapons and equipment, and research and development. Ten years following the 9/11 attacks, after drawdown of troops in Iraq, and with our troops still committed in Afghanistan, our national security faces continuing challenges with respect to fighting and prosecuting the war on terror. First, the enemy is using the instruments of our own free society against us. They are using our court system bytrying to poke holes in the ten-year-old Congressional authorization for the use of force against al-Qaeda. We must ensure that these choices aren't made by activist judges from the bench, but by commanders on the battlefield. Second, the Obama Administration has been backsliding into a pre-9/11 mindset. The administration's actions demonstrate that their attitude is that terrorism is a crime, not an act of war. The implications for this change have the potential to be disastrous. The administration wants terrorists who attack America at home, like the underwear bomber or the Times Square bomber, to go into civilian law enforcement custody instead of military custody. Instead of treating these individuals like terrorists, he wants to treat them like ordinary criminals and to try them in civilian courts. It is vital that foreign terrorists that are focused on waging war against American freedom are treated as enemy combatants according to the laws of war. Addressing these concerns with the Obama Administration's activities, the House included language in the counterterrorism section of the NDAA, Sec. 1031 through Sec. 1034. This language reaffirms support for the 2001 Congressional Authorization on the Use of Military Force (AUMF) which authorizes the president to use all necessary measures and force "against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001..." Our provisions reinforce the authority of theAUMF aimed at non-U.S. citizens who plot and carry out terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens or troops. The NDAAoriginally passed the House on May 26, 201, with my support, and was sent to the Senate for consideration. After months of debate, the Senate passed the bill 93-7 on December 1, 2011. At this point, there were differences in the House and Senate versions of the bill and a Conference was called to resolve these differences. The House and Senate both passed the Conference version of the NDAA and it was signed into law by the president on December 31, 2011. Like many, I was concerned about the possible application of apprehension and detention of U.S. citizens which is clearly prohibited by our Constitution. The Senate version of the bill had left this unclear, but it was changed by the House in Conference. This bill does not pertain to U.S. citizens or legal aliens. Its sole purpose is to protect America from terrorist attacks against our troops in the battlefield and our citizens here at home. As you will note, in the finalversion of the NDAA, the detainee and custody provisions in Sections 1021 and 1022 contain language explicitly exempting U.S. citizens and legal aliens from detainment: SUBTITLE D. SEC. 1021. "(e) AUTHORITIES.—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." SUBTITLE D. SEC. 1022. "(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." As Congress works to protect our nation from terrorist attacks, I will continue to steadfastly support efforts to strengthen and modernize our national defense, protect the rights of American citizens, and support our uniformed men and women who are committed to protecting America. As a member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I remain committed to our veterans as well as our soldiers who are actively serving our country. We must provide these true heroes with the tools they need to complete their missions and return to their families as soon and as safely as possible. Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind should legislation regarding military funding, our troops, national defense, and our civil liberties comes before me in Congress. Thank you for entrusting me to represent you in the United States Congress. If you would like more information on this or any other issue, please visit my website at flores.house.gov.... Very truly yours, Bill Flores Member of Congress

Since then the bill has been knocked down for not passing "constitutional muster" and the White House would not even respond when asked if they were already indefinitely detaining American citizens without trail. The knockdown of the bill was overturned and granted a temporary stay. Now the court has upheld the bill and the stay has been granted an extension.

Court upholds NDAA; stay extended on indefinite detention injunction

The Obama administration said the clause allowing them to detain anyone associated with terrorism is vital and without it could be a national security threat. So my State Rep was absolutely wrong about the bill as the Obama Administration is working hard to keep that part of the bill that allows the detain ANYONE in.

So I have written him back:

So I sent you an email a few months back about your support of the NDAA bill. I raised concerns about this bill being used to indefinitely detain american citizens without trial. You specifically stated that the bill would not pertain to American citizens. Here is a quote from your letter " Like many, I was concerned about the possible application of apprehension and detention of U.S. citizens which is clearly prohibited by our Constitution. The Senate version of the bill had left this unclear, but it was changed by the House in Conference. This bill does not pertain to U.S. citizens or legal aliens. Its sole purpose is to protect America from terrorist attacks against our troops in the battlefield and our citizens here at home. As you will note, in the final version of the NDAA, the detainee and custody provisions in Sections 1021 and 1022 contain language explicitly exempting U.S. citizens and legal aliens from detainment" This in fact turned out to be 100% inaccurate as the Obama administration has been fighting hard the past few weeks to make sure that they have the ability to detain American citizens. After being shot down for not passing "constitutional muster", it was quickly overturned. The Obama administration said it would be a national security threat to no have this ability and would not even respond when asked if they already employed this power. Does this not concern you????????? Have you changed your stance on this bill??????? What is your take on the accusations that there are American-Pakistani dual citizens are already behind bars without charge or trail.

I will keep you posted on his response and I encourage you to do the same to your state rep. Use the link below to find you State Rep:


www.house.gov...

Do we really want this bill to stay??????????????? Then do something about it other than complain!!!!!!!

reply to post by stdscf12

Its my opinion that people are scared.

They are scared to write their own government. They think that they will be "targeted" in some way or end up on a list of some kind. Theyre probably right.

They think Obama is their savior. Obama is actually worse than Bush. As Glenn Greenwald points out in his excellent article: Obama has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law.

People had their chance, but they were too stupid to realize it:

I just found your thread while checking to see if someone else had the story first. I'm surprised it fell through the cracks with so little notice. this is a major major issue in my view. They burned themselves as I understand it, for what this is during the arguments in favor of maintaining it for the case they lost. Now they fought hard enough and judge shopped just right to get it all turned back on.

Well.. Just Dandy... So he didn't just get it written in and sign it once...He's directed his administration to actively fight and repeatedly, as far as necessary to keep this as a viable options to use against Americans. Yeah..That lost case for transcripts removed all doubt on those little issues, didn't they? I do have another link with more legalese focus to the story if it may help.

Military Detention Law Extended

And here I thought we wouldn't have to worry about being arrested without notice, charge or right to council for an undetermined time in a place they don't even have to share the location of. Silly bunny, I know.... I keep thinking I'm still in America where things make sense.