Skip to main content

View Diary: Can anyone help make sense of this news on NDAA? (57 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I posted in that Diary why it was (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TexasDan, Cedwyn

    "full of crap." If you go there, you'll see a long post quoting the White House directly, and other more informed sources. I watched the Senate debate live, and the video was taken completely out of context. It was a "hit job" a la James O'Keefe-type or a Bill Kristol Emergency Committee for Israel con job.

    Newt Gingrich is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like. - Paul Krugman

    by RhodaA on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:35:15 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks, I'll go look for it. nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RhodaA, mint julep

      A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

      by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:37:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's just one of my posts (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cedwyn

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        There's more if you peruse carefully. Also, you can go to C-Span website to hear the whole debate, not just the splice shown in that Diary.

        Newt Gingrich is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like. - Paul Krugman

        by RhodaA on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:40:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Is this the thread (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RhodaA

          to which you were referring?
          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          This does not get AZDem off the hook.  He needs to identify what he thinks is crap and why he thinks it.

          A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

          by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:44:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  i thnk you'll both enjoy this (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RhodaA, Hound Dog, second gen

            http://www.thepeoplesview.net/...

            as rhoda said, the video in that diary was taken hella out of context.

            My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

            by Cedwyn on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:51:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  THANK YOU, CEDWYN!!!!! (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cedwyn, Hound Dog

              You can always trust The People's View for some truth. I haven't read it yet, but I sure look forward to it!

              Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

              Newt Gingrich is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like. - Paul Krugman

              by RhodaA on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:54:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I just read it (0+ / 0-)

              Even that does spell out the whole truth. It clarifies part of it, but Levin's position is still precarious. Feinstein is the one who told the truth. Obama does not agree with Levin.

              Newt Gingrich is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like. - Paul Krugman

              by RhodaA on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:57:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  One of the reason the Administration and others (0+ / 0-)

                object to 1031 (what the above article does not explain), is because even though American citizens could get a waiver, it establishes de facto automatic military detention/trials which are then waived. What then might happen with future presidents who might choose to nulify the waiver?

                Feinstein (and others) went into that? There's also a very good article (somewhere on web) about it by Jonathan Turley.

                Newt Gingrich is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like. - Paul Krugman

                by RhodaA on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 05:02:26 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  I think that's a stretch (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hound Dog, VClib
              The detainee provisions attempted to codify existing law

              It codifies the existing understanding of the 4th Circuit Court, the most conservative circuit in the country.  The SCOTUS hasn't ruled definitively on whether US persons captured away from the battlefield and on US soil can be detained pursuant to the US.  

              Given that, I think it's a little disingenuous to say that this just codifies existing law.  What it does is codify a pretty expansive view of the AUMF that was put forth by the 4th circuit.

              •  Ok, here I go........ (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                johnny wurster

                Do the provisions of NDAA allow the government of the USA, through military means, to snatch and grab US citizens on US soil, without indictment, without warrant, on nothing more than the mere say-so of someone in the chain of command, and export them anywhere in the world they want, with no access to a speedy and public trial by civilian court or any rights in the Constitution, and subject to being held indefinitely by military personnel?  or not?

                If so, what specific words in the NDAA allow this?

                A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

                by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 07:37:18 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And, if not, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  johnny wurster

                  are there specific words in the NDAA which prohibit the snatch-and-grab scenario I described?

                  Not asking if it's Constitutional or unconstitutional.  I'm asking if the NDAA enables snatch-and-grab under it's own language.

                  A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

                  by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 07:44:15 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  near as i can tell, it doesn't enable that (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Hound Dog

                    levin said the detainee provisions already exclude u.s. citizens.  feinstein wanted to specify that it was only applicable to those captured abroad.  obama requested that, too.  the senate said no.

                    obama is, apparently, still not thrilled with what's come out.

                    seriously watch that c-span video.

                    My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

                    by Cedwyn on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 07:34:28 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Because of the Feinstein amendment, (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Cedwyn, Hound Dog

                  the NDAA - in theory - doesn't change the statutory authority that already exists.  And, while it's not clear whether a US person captured on US soil that hasn't prepared abroad for attack could be detained, it seems likely that a US person captured on a US soil that has a "sufficient nexus" to the battlefield could be detained. (ie, they came from an al-Qaeda training camp or Taliban area).  

                  Here's Lawfare on some different scenarios:

                  First, it might try to detain a citizen who is an arms-bearing member of the enemy’s forces in a foreign combat zone.  Hamdi makes clear that detention authority does extend to that situation already, under the AUMF, and that this is constitutionally permissible (which is no surprise, in my view; In re Territo has long been a standard cite for that same proposition).

                  Second, the government might wish to detain a citizen found here in the United States, alleging involvement in al Qaeda or another AUMF-covered group.  This issue arose with Jose Padilla, an al Qaeda member and U.S. citizen who was arrested on arrival at O’Hare Airport in Chicago and then eventually held for long period in military custody.  He challenged that detention through a habeas petition, with mixed results.  Suffice to say that the district judge felt that detention authority did not extend to this scenario, that the Fourth Circuit panel hearing his case somewhat avoided the issue by emphasizing the idea that Padilla previously had born arms on the combat zone in Afghanistan and thus was actually similarly-situated to Hamdi, that some observers were confident the Supreme Court would reverse, and that we never found out because Padilla was transferred to civilian custody in order to face prosecution (he was duly convicted and is now in jail).  A similar case involving a non-citizen captured in the United States, Ali Salah Kahleh al-Marri, produced a similar result. In short, this is exactly what folks mean when they say that the status quo is unsettled on the question of authority to detain within the U.S.

                  A third scenario would involve an attempt by the government to hold in military custody a citizen linked to an AUMF-covered group who is captured outside the United States, but not in a hot battlefield context and lacking any prior connection to such combat operations.  Say, for example, that Anwar al-Awlaki had been captured in a Special Forces raid in Yemen, rather than killed in a drone strike.  We’ve not had a case like that yet, so it seems to me we’d have to say the law is at least somewhat unsettled as well.


                  And I think that's right: it's just not clear.  IMHO, given the weight all previous cases put on the notion of the battlefield, I personally think that anyone detained would have had to come from a battlefield.

                  re: "mere say-so": note that detainees have a right to habeas corpus; the US has to be able to prove by a preponderance of evidence (ie, more likely than not) that the detainee is, in fact, a member of al-Qaeda or associated forces.

                  To your below question, there's nothing in the face of the bill that limits detention authority.  On its face, the military can detain anyone, US citizen or not, that's a member of al-Qaeda.  The authority in the original AUMF was contextually linked to the war in Afghanistan, so based on that context its detention authority was accordingly linked to the battlefield (see, eg, O'Connor's opinion in Hamdi, discussing how detention is an incident to the war power).

                  The concern w/ the new NDAA language - prior to the Feinstein Amendment - was that it was just a freestanding detention power that was no longer linked to the battlefield in the way the detention authority provided by the AUMF was.

                  •  Thank you very much for (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    joanneleon

                    these replies, johnny, it's appreciated.

                    The nightmare scenario is where the government grants itself, whether constitutional or not, a legal mechanism to militarily snatch and grab US citizens on US soil, without due process, on nothing other than whim and say-so of someone in the chain of command.  If that exists, then someone will use it.  And Benjamin Franklin can be told that we failed to keep the republic.

                    This appears to me very murky water we are in.  If it's murky, then it's murky be design, and there's likely hidden a reptile that can leap out, I'd say.  Your thoughts?

                    A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

                    by Hound Dog on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 11:13:57 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  no (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hound Dog

                  near as i can tell, that is not the case.  watch the whole video of the senate session where that clip originated.

                  http://www.c-spanvideo.org/...

                  http://www.thepeoplesview.net/...

                  the important stuff starts around 1:30:00 or so.  

                  My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

                  by Cedwyn on Sun Dec 11, 2011 at 07:32:49 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Who is AZDem? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hound Dog

            If you go to the TPM link they spell out some of W.H. objections.

            Also, this is a more formal document:

            Statement of Administration Policy
            -- Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.

            http://www.whitehouse.gov/....

            If you piece it all together, which would require some work including going to the C-Span website to get the real video, one would find some answers. Nothing has yet been resolved and we do not know what the outcome will be.

            Newt Gingrich is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like. - Paul Krugman

            by RhodaA on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 05:52:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  PS: I just saw who AZDem is. (S)he is right. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hound Dog

              Newt Gingrich is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like. - Paul Krugman

              by RhodaA on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:09:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Right about what? (0+ / 0-)

                "Crap" is pretty non-specific.

                A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

                by Hound Dog on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:13:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That the "Diary" in question (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hound Dog

                  was a sloppy, ill-informed, dishonest mess. Any serious investigation of the issue would have found tons of available sources never mentioned, just a few of which I referenced - all contradicting the gist of that Diary. Mother Jones, for instance, wrote several pieces about it.

                  Anyway, I'm glad you wrote this Diary. It gives people who really what to know the truth some pause ....

                  Thanks

                  Newt Gingrich is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like. - Paul Krugman

                  by RhodaA on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 06:22:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site