Skip to main content

View Diary: How does the NDAA involve detention of American citizens? (70 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm very interested to read the comments in (2+ / 0-)

    your diary, and I salute you for having the courage to ask this question.

    Here's an article in the Guardian that makes the claim right up front

    President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment, to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country … and citizens partied in unwitting bliss into the New Year.
    The author cites different sections of the law than you do, 1032 and 1031, to make his case:
    The Obama administration and Democratic members are in full spin mode – using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorisation to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.
    This claim has really roiled the progressive community to the point of ending--probably permanently--people's support for the President, or even willingness to vote for him again. A rec-listed diary today was based on the idea that this provision was so egregious that it essentially nullified the idea of voting for Obama to protect the country from the Republican candidates. The diarist made the point that what we have now is just as bad as the monsters now seeking the GOP nod.  (To be clear, many of the same people were predisposed to have this view of the President anyway, but this law seems to be a final straw.)

    I'd really like to understand this, having heard both sides of the story without a clear answer either way.  I await the responses.

    Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain

    by SottoVoce on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 04:51:57 PM PST

    •  It IS confusing, but I am placing some trust here (0+ / 0-)

      in my excellent D senators, Tom Udall and Steve Bingaman -- both of who have 95% lifetime ratings from the ACLU, both of whom voted against the Iraq war, both of whom voted against the original PATRIOT Act.  

      Yet they both voted in favor of the NDAA.   And I just don't think they would have done that, had its admittedly turgid language boiled down to a frontal assault on the right to trial for Americans.  Bingaman is even retiring, and would have no reason to compromise his legacy at this late date.  

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 05:20:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Section 1031 = 1021. Section 1032 = 1022. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      leftist vegetarian patriot

      Section 1031 and 1032 references alert you that you're reading an analysis of the Senate bill.

      Those sections were renumbered Section 1021 and 1022 in the final bill enacted into law.

      The amendments in the conference report (final bill) were not significant in their effect on individuals' rights but only claried goverment agency rights and coordination and confirmed the administration's authority to coordinate its agencies and the military in dealing with detentions.  

      I hope you have time and patience to read my comment(s) below.  

      Someone in a very expensive suit is at the front door and says he wants to foreclose on our democracy. Where should I tell him he can put his robosigning pen?

      by Into The Woods on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 06:21:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes I read them (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Into The Woods

        I struggled to understand them, and also followed your "10th time" link (which was somehow clearer).  I came away suitably chastened, and convinced that this has to be revisited and clarified by any shadow of a doubt in favor of constitutional rights.  Neither the signing statement nor faith in Obama's restraint is sufficient.

        Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain

        by SottoVoce on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:05:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I read both sections referenced in the Guardian (0+ / 0-)

      piece. The link to the full text (as passed by Congress) is in the diary and those sections are on pages 273-275. They don't seem even slightly relevant to what the author was saying. Take a look and tell me I'm wrong.

      My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
      --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

      by leftist vegetarian patriot on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:36:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site